Stop using child abuse as a political football

KENNY MACASKILL HITS BACK AT SNP COLLEAGUES

Comments made at the Child Abuse Inquiry by former Cabinet colleagues require clarification, both to set the record straight and, just as importantly, to query their reticence in another ongoing investigation.

The picture painted was of a Cabinet football match in which the thuggish half-back line of Salmond, Macaskill and Mulholland brutally thwar ted courageous striker Michael Russell and his able midfield general John Swinney from scoring the goal which would have won the Child Abuse Inquir y all the sooner. The realit y was, of course, far different, as those who know which of the participants actually played football and who did not really at all.

Cabinet had been seeking to ensure justice for abuse victims following on from the Shaw Review in 2007 and the Kerelaw Inquir y in 2009. Work had been ongoing, with the S cottish Human Rights Commission preparing an action plan, and a decision on a fur ther inquir y was to be made by the end of 2014.

Given the nature, scale, and indeed, ongoing difficulties that had beset a similar inquir y south of the B order, care was understandably being taken.

A proposal was brought to Cabinet by Michael Russell in autumn 2014. The Lord Advocate very wisely pointed out some deficiencies in it and issues that could arise as a result of it – an inter vention made to enhance, not detract, from government policy. And something, as an aside, I should add that his successor would benefit from doing rather than st ymieing core government policy whether on another referendum or open government.

That wise counsel was suppor ted by Cabinet and the result was Mr Russell being directed by the then First Minister to improve the proposals but confirm the direction of travel towards an inquir y, which he duly did in a parliamentar y statement on November 11 2014. With the resignation of Alex Salmond that month and Cabinet changes, including both my own and Mr Russell’s depar ture, the announcement of an inquir y was made the following month on December 17 by his successor Angela Constance.

The S cottish inquir y hasn’t been without its difficulties, as the time that has passed since the commitment made in Parliament to hold one shows. It’s also had own travails but the caution and advice of the then Lord Advocate no doubt helped minimise them. It is to be hoped that justice will soon pre - vail for all those who have suffered. But those comments made recently by former colleagues were as flagrant a breach of the ministerial code as you’ll see with Cabinet collective responsibilit y ignored. It also flouts the sup - posedly sacrosanct nature of law officers’ advice, an idea which has seen t wo Holyrood votes to release information so far ignored.

It does seem strange, if not hypo - critical, that advice of a former Lord Advocate can be subjectively released to the Child Abuse Inquir y without even a by your leave, yet the so - called Salmond inquir y in Holyrood, which is in fact into the actions of the S cottish Government, has seen t wo parliamentar y votes to release advice thus far rejected.

Addressing historic child abuse is a dut y, not a political football.