The comments infuriated MSPs, who said Ms Constance had spread “false information.”
They also called on the minister to spell out whether Professor Jay had ever been asked for her advice on whether Scotland should commission an inquiry.
There was anger too that the Cabinet Secretary sent a junior minister to answer on her behalf.
That was despite earlier telling journalists that Ms Constance would “explain” the situation to Parliament.
Ms Don-Innes said Ms Constance was “currently travelling on Scottish Government business”.
Labour MP Joani Reid said the absence was “bordering on contempt for survivors”.
Where was the Minster? What is more important than organised child sex abuse?
I’ve tried not to make this personal and give the Scottish Gov space to do the right thing. But this is now bordering on contempt for survivors.
It’s clear they never sought Prof Jay’s views because… https://t.co/zBMa2d1K3e
— Joani Reid MP (@JoaniReid) November 19, 2025
On Wednesday, The Herald revealed that officials had quietly published a correction stating that comments made during September’s debate on the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill were incorrect.
During that debate, Scottish Conservative justice spokesperson Liam Kerr tabled an amendment that would have required the new Victims Commissioner for Scotland to carry out research on grooming gangs.
However, Ms Constance said work in this area was already being carried out by Police Scotland and the specialist National Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Strategic Group, established in 2024.
She said Prof Jay, chair of an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales, “shares my view and has put on the record and stated to the media that she does not support further inquiries into child sexual abuse and exploitation, given the significant time and resource already spent in the review that she led, the Casey audit and other reviews.
“She says that it is now time that ‘people should just get on with it’.
“I contend that that is what the Scottish Government is doing right here, right now — we are getting on with the work that we need to do to protect children.”
Mr Kerr’s amendment was defeated by 62 votes to 51.
However, minutes of October’s meeting of the National Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Strategic Group — published on Tuesday — include a “clarification of Alexis Jay’s position on inquiries”.
It states: “During the debate on the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill in Parliament on 16 September, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice quoted the views of Professor Alexis Jay on calls for further inquiries into child sexual abuse.
“Co-chair clarified that Professor Jay shared these views in January of this year in the context of her work on the Independent Inquiry in England and Wales and was not related to the debate on the Victims Bill or the position in Scotland.”
Natalie Don-Innes said she was answering questions as her colleague was ‘travelling’
Asked about the correction by Mr Kerr, Ms Don-Innes said Ms Constance had “raised awareness of the work led by Professor Alexis Jay, who now sits on our national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group”.
She added: “Ms Constance noted specifically that Professor Jay had been the chair of an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales and had put on record in the past that in regard to child sexual abuse and exploitation, ‘people should just get on with it’.
“Professor Jay minuted at the strategic group’s meeting in October that the quote was correct and was from January and not made in relation to the amendment or the Victims Bill.
“Ms Constance did not state that Professor Jay was speaking directly about the amendment. She made a general point on Professor Jay’s views on calls for inquiries and that she also wanted to get on with the work needed to protect our children.”
Mr Kerr said: “When this chamber was asked to vote on my amendment, which would have led ultimately to a Scottish grooming gangs inquiry, MSPs partly voted based on information put before them by the Cabinet Secretary, which was false.”
He asked ministers whether they now accepted that some MSPs “may have voted in favour but for the false information” and urged the government to give Parliament “another chance to vote for a Scottish grooming gangs inquiry, this time based on accurate information”.
Ms Don-Innes insisted Mr Kerr was “not setting out properly the effect of the amendment”.
She said: “All that amendment would have required was that the Victims and Witnesses Commissioner, who has not yet been appointed, undertake a report to consider whether any further action was required in that respect.
“It is a distortion essentially to say that there was a grooming gangs inquiry proposal in front of Parliament that was not supported.”
Mr Kerr described the response as “more sophistry”, warning MSPs to “never forget that this is really about the victims of this most heinous, most vicious of crimes”.
Scottish Labour MSP Pauline McNeill asked the minister to tell Parliament if the government had now spoken to Professor Jay.
“Do you have her advice on whether or not there should be a further inquiry into the sexual abuse of children in Scotland?”
Ms Don-Innes did not initially give a direct answer, instead reiterating that “protecting children from harm is an absolute priority” and that ongoing work by Police Scotland and the national strategic group, of which Professor Jay is a member, would inform the government’s view.
Ms McNeill raised a point of order to challenge the lack of clarity in the answers, asking the Presiding Officer: “What was the point of the urgent question if I cannot even get an answer on it?”
Pauline McNeill said the minister was refusing to answer direct questions
Alison Johnstone, the Presiding Officer, reminded ministers it is “of paramount importance that members, including ministers, give accurate information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity”.
Labour’s Daniel Johnson tried again, asking the minister: “Has the government sought the advice of Professor Jay as to whether or not the independent review of child abuse cases is required in Scotland? Was that specific question put to Professor Jay, yes or no?”
Ms Don-Innes replied: “I feel I have given a specific answer on that. Yes, advice has been sought through Professor Jay via the CSAE group.”
Earlier in the day, Taylor, a grooming gang survivor, who wrote to John Swinney last week, told The Herald: “I have watched the Scottish Government spend months arguing about process while people like me are left to carry the consequences and still the child sexual exploitation and child sexual abuse of vulnerable children continues.
“It feels to me as if they are more interested in protecting themselves and playing party politics than they are in understanding what really happened to us. I do not want excuses or any private apologies, I want someone independent to look at the files and tell the truth.
“Until this happens, survivors will not have any confidence that the system cares about children more than its own reputation.”
