 The next item of business is a statement by Angela Constance on historic child abuse. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement. There should be therefore no interruptions or interventions. I call on Angela Constance, cabinet secretary, 10 minutes. On 11 November, my predecessor Michael Russell stood in this chamber and spoke about the moral imperative that compels all of us to face up to and act on the reality of historical abuse of children and the current risks of child abuse. In his statement, he laid out this Government's commitment to move comprehensively and quickly on these issues. He reflected on the achievements of Survivor Scotland, the interaction process and the establishment of the national confidential forum. He promised to return to this chamber to set out the Government's view on whether a national inquiry into historic abuse in Scotland is the right way forward to meeting the needs of survivors. Today, Presiding Officer, I am making good on that promise. There have been national investigations into this issue before, such as the shore review and the care law inquiry. It is important that any further inquiry complements and builds on previous work while moving the issue forward. We must also be conscious of the work that is already under way with survivors. The Scottish Government has already given its commitment to working to develop a survivor support fund and to fund an appropriate commemoration that is guided by the views of survivors. The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs has invited key stakeholders from the legal sector to consider how the civil justice system can be more accessible and responsive to survivors of abuse whilst children in care. That will include consideration of the way in which the time bar operates. We will continue to work with survivors to ensure the fullest understanding of the civil justice barriers that survivors face today. Our dedication to considering all of the issues must match the seriousness of the issues. We have witnessed the pitfalls when an administration rushes to make decisions about an inquiry without involving the people who will most be affected by it. We are not a Government that believes in haste at the expense of sense, and we are committed to delivering on what we promise. The victims of abuse are owed nothing less than a thorough consideration of all factors before a decision is reached. Of course, the case for an inquiry is strong. I am sure that I do not need to tell members of this chamber that we ought to survivors to find the truth, to speak that truth wherever it needs to be heard and to listen and learn from what we hear. We must also be mindful that inquiries are major undertakings. The decision to launch them cannot be taken lightly, and the planning around them must be careful and inclusive with a clear focus and not open-ended in either remit or timescale. As part of the Scottish human rights interaction response, I have met a number of survivors on Monday, along with the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs and the Minister for Children and Young People, and we discussed what an inquiry would mean to them. I have deliberated carefully having listened to their personal experiences and concerns. I have also reflected on the words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who once said that if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. This Parliament must always be on the side of victims of abuse. We must have the truth of what happened to them and how those organisations and individuals into whose care the children were entrusted failed them so catastrophically. We will get to that truth and we will be establishing a national public inquiry into historical abuse of children in institutional care. To ensure justice is done, I can tell the chamber that where crimes are exposed, the full force of the law will be available to bring the perpetrators to account. I can advise the chamber that the law advocate has been consulted on holding the inquiry and measures will be put in place to ensure that the inquiry does not compromise or interfere with on-going criminal investigations and prosecutions. I am grateful to the survivors of institutional child abuse, who have taken the time to meet me and other ministers and who have spoken so bravely and eloquently about why they consider a public inquiry is needed and why it is necessary. Of course, as vital as their voices have been in getting us to the point, and indeed those voices have been vital, I am also acutely conscious that there are many more survivors who remain silent. As abused children, they had no voice, no one to cry out on their behalf at the appalling injustices that they suffered while growing up, and today they await the right circumstances for their experiences to be heard. I sincerely hope that the public inquiry will provide such an opportunity, because as a society we have an opportunity to confront the mistakes of our past and to learn from them. It will not be easy, but only by shining a light on the darkest recesses of our recent history will we fully understand the failures of our past, enabling us to prevent them happening again and to ensure a brighter future for every child and young person in Scotland, both today and for tomorrow. A few weeks ago, the First Minister set out the priorities for our Government, speaking about the need to build a fairer and more equitable Scotland. It is a vision of a Scotland that will look truth square in the eye and one that will not be quick to judge but one that will not flinch from what is discovered. For that reason, the inquiry will be a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Scotland Act 2005. It will have the power to compel witnesses to attend and give evidence if required. As intimated earlier, we will consult with survivors and relevant organisations on the exact terms of reference, and I propose that the process be completed by the end of April. Those terms of reference need to capture the principles of the inquiry and how we can create the right environment to support victims to confide and the right timescales over which it should be held. That process must also find the right people to oversee the inquiry, not least any chair or panel. We will not make the same mistakes as others by rushing out with names before we have consulted with survivors and relevant organisations about the attributes of a chair or panel. To support this work, I have asked the Centre for Excellence for looked after children in Scotland, Celsus, to provide on-going logistical support, academic input and expert advice throughout the process. Indeed, engagement with survivors has already started in earnest. Scottish Government officials have written to survivor organisations on plans for engagement around these matters for the first few months of next year. We have had a positive response from organisations who have welcomed the opportunity to speak to us in a setting where survivors will feel comfortable in having their voices heard. As part of that, we will also hold a series of regional events that will give a wide range of stakeholders the opportunity to contribute. As well as shaping the survivor support fund, those events will be used to consult on the inquiry with a view to having the terms of reference and announcing a chair or panel, as I said earlier, by the end of April next year. I want to conclude my statement with one further reflection when this Parliament was reconvened in 1999 and Scotland's inaugural First Minister, Donald Dewart, addressed the nation during the opening ceremony. He spoke of the four words on the mass that sits in this chamber, wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity. Those are the words that resound whenever this chamber has turned to this issue, and they are the words in which this inquiry will be founded. I am happy to take questions from members. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, but I will let it run on as long as necessary, after which we will move to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question were to press the request-speak button now, and I call Lleon Gray. I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and early sight of it. It is a welcome statement and a welcome decision. In truth, it should have happened sooner. I understand the points that the cabinet secretary made about the care and the lack of haste required in coming to a view, but it is ten years since the former First Minister, Jack McConnell, apologised on behalf of the Scottish people to the survivors of institutional child abuse. For a moral imperative, this has proceeded and progressed too slowly. This next step has taken too long, but we are taking it today. The most important thing, and the cabinet secretary acknowledged this, and she was right, is that those survivors who have campaigned long and hard and those who have always felt unable to speak out all have faith in the process that we begin today. To that end, can the cabinet secretary give us some indication of how widely and which institutions she expects the inquiry to investigate? Can she elaborate on how she will consult survivors on the appointment of a chair, inclusively and transparently, to avoid the missteps we have seen elsewhere? Can she tell us how will survivors be supported through expenses and otherwise in giving their evidence, and how will she ensure that this inquiry does not just examine the historic abuses but ensures that those shameful events are not and cannot occur in Scotland today? I am grateful to Mr Gray for the tone and tenor of his question. He does, of course, make the point about why we are having an inquiry now. I am acutely conscious that it is ten years ago, since Jack McConnell made that very public apology on behalf of the nation. However, it is important to recognise that much has happened in the last ten years. There has been the national strategy introduced in 2005 by the previous administration, and that administration took that forward. Since 2007, we have seen the shore review and the care law inquiry. We currently fund 25 organisations that support survivors. As ministers, we are actively participating in the Scottish human rights interaction process, which, in August this year, produced a new paper and I think made a very compelling case about why we now need that inquiry. It is important that, as we move forward over the first few months of 2015, we hand in love with survivors and the organisations that represent them. They need to be consulted about the person's spec and the skills that we require, either in terms of the chairperson or the panel. There are a range of views in the survivor community in terms of the type of individual or whether it should be a co-chair or a panel. We will continue to earn us with that work. The point that he asks about which institutions, again we have to look at the detail of that. Again, I am acutely conscious that, when you look at the history of institutional child abuse in Scotland, it is not just those institutions of the state and there are children of the 50s and 60s and perhaps even as late as the 70s, who were put into institutional types of care by quite an informal arrangement. It is important that the terms of reference are crafted in a way that we will indeed get the true nature and scope and the extent of institutional child abuse in this country from children who were put into institutional care. Although I am very conscious that there are many forms of institutional care and we are committed to ensuring that survivors have the necessary emotional and financial support both to participate in the inquiry process but also as they go forward in their road to recovery. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. We too welcome the announcement by the Scottish Government that there will be a national inquiry into historic abuse of children in institutional care. I hope that it will provide an opportunity to expose the perpetrators of such hideous crimes against children in Scotland and to learn lessons to prevent this abuse of children in care ever happening again. The cabinet secretary has explained that key stakeholders will be consulted to ensure that the legal proceedings will be as accessible to survivors as possible. Today, I want to emphasise the importance of ensuring the accessibility of this inquiry. She noted also that many survivors remain silent about abuse and have no voice. I am concerned that this may remain the case unless there is very practical help and support available for the brave people who come forward, because only an inquiry which supports survivors can truly deliver the justice that victims deserve. Can I ask her this inquiry will work alongside other inquiries into abuse, which will also take place across the United Kingdom? Will it share information with the other inquiries, and can the victims have confidence that guilty individuals who may have worked in institutions right across the United Kingdom will be held to account? It is important to recognise that the inquiry does not operate in isolation and that it is the job of the police to investigate the criminality of individuals and organisations. It is the job of prosecutors to prosecute, and it is the job of courts to convict on the basis of evidence. All that must continue, and it does continue on a daily basis. I am sure that my colleague Michael Matheson, the justice secretary, would give testimony to that, but the point that she makes about working with other inquiries where appropriate is a pragmatic one. We have to recognise that child abuse does not have any borders and that we may indeed have to work with other jurisdictions, but it is appropriate that we have in Scotland our national public statutory inquiry looking at our failings as a country in our past. My officials have already been in touch, for example, with officials in Northern Ireland, because there is an inquiry on that basis. Of course, we will have discussions and share information and experiences as appropriate with our colleagues in the UK Government. The point that Annette Milne makes about the accessibility of the inquiry and, again, ensuring the right support for survivors to participate is, of course, well made, but that is why, crucially, we are taking our time to work with survivors, get the right terms of reference, get the right scope and the right people involved to lead the inquiry. It is appropriate that we take the time to do that and we do not rush into decisions, albeit that there is a deadline of April. We have given ourselves rightly so some further time to work through the detail, but that is to work through the detail with survivors, and I think that that is entirely appropriate. Gil Paterson, followed by Alice McInnes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I appreciate that the terms of the inquiry will be at a very early stage and that survivors must be consulted on that going forward. However, I wondered if the cabinet secretary could outline any specific actions of the inquiry that she hopes to achieve. Having laid so much emphasis on the need to consult with survivors meaningfully and appropriately, I do not want to over-speculate about the purpose or, indeed, the terms of reference of an inquiry, but it is important to emphasise that the purpose of an inquiry is about getting to truth and justice. It is about giving that public acknowledgement and validation. It is about establishing a comprehensive national record, and it is crucially about understanding the nature and extent of the abuse of children in care and the extent to which the state and non-state institutions failed in their duty to protect vulnerable children. It is crucial, again, to consider how those failings have been addressed in terms of policy practice and legislation. I am very clear that the inquiry has to be independent, it has to be robust and, based on what survivors are telling me, they are looking for an inquisitorial inquiry as opposed to an adversarial inquiry. However, it needs to focus on the systemic and institutional failings that let so many of our children down. I, too, welcome the announcement of a public inquiry with statutory powers. Victims and survivors have long cried out for that. The trauma of victims and survivors must always, however, be to the forefront. How will the inquiry ensure that, in getting to the truth, it does not compound that damage? Can I press the cabinet secretary on what support will be available to victims and survivors of abuse when they interact with the inquiry? Will third-party advocates be able to present evidence on behalf of those who are unable to engage in them by themselves? I get back to Ms McInnes about the ins and outs of whether third parties can represent individuals. I will take that on board, but I think that it needs to be considered carefully. She makes a very important point that what we have to avoid is survivors being re-traumatised by having to give evidence or participate in an inquiry. It is important to stress that the purpose of a statutory inquiry is not to compel victims or survivors. It is about compelling other witnesses who are absolutely crucial to getting to the truth and the systemic and institutional failings, but we have to ensure that the right environment, with the right skills and the right expertise, is leading that inquiry, but it is also available to support survivors. That has come in very clearly from survivors themselves. We must not have a public inquiry that processes and the ways of doing business will compound trauma or re-traumatise individuals. We have to avoid that, and I am very clear about that. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement. I think that the presentation of that statement indicates that the Government gets it as far as this issue is concerned. She should know that survivors have feared that, over the years of the way, that has enabled the destruction of paperwork, evidence and perhaps the identity of some witnesses that might have been of some value to a public inquiry. Will she be able to assure survivors today that she will take all steps from here on in to ensure that paperwork is protected and that evidence is maintained awaiting the creation of this inquiry? Will she ensure that instances of documentation that is either missing or being destroyed will be reported for the public information and in the interests of transparency? Can I start by assuring Mr Pearson that I do indeed get it and this Government gets it? The point that he makes about records is crucially important, because as a former social worker and, indeed, as a constituency MSP, I have certainly heard individuals in my life who live with the frustration and the pain of not being able to understand or put together a chronology of their own life story because records are missing. There is so much that we, as individuals, take for granted. We will all have many pictures of our own children and many documents and memorabilia of our own childhood and that of our children. Many of the survivors have huge gaps in their life because records were destroyed. It is very difficult as part of their recovery to move forward when there are big gaps in their life story. The point about here on in, about records, is crucial in protecting the integrity of information. I am clear that survivors must have absolute confidence in the process. An important point, however, in terms of one of the core purposes of an inquiry, is to create that comprehensive national record and that, I hope, may help some individuals to be able to piece together their own life story and their own life journey. That comprehensive national record is very important to have that chronology of events. There is work that is currently on-going as a Government about having an online database of all children's homes in Scotland, for example. That is important work. We are looking and learning from other jurisdictions in terms of Australia from their finding and learning services and some of that is about helping people to piece together their lives and to help people to relocate relatives, siblings and parents that they were separated from. I would like to focus on the issue of time bar. In her statement, it mentions that this will include consideration of the way in which time bar operates. Having been here for some time, I was able to look back and see that there was a review on the law of limitation back in 2004-5. Again, the Scottish Law Commission is asked to consider aspects of the law in such relation back at the beginning of 2007. It seems to me that there is a reluctance, perhaps, by the legal profession to look at time bar. What I would say is that there is now a recognition way ahead of anything that we have ever had before because of recent very sad events across the UK that survivors are very reluctant often to come forward for years and years and years. I am impressed by the cabinet secretary that, although she cannot interfere with the operation of the justice system to take every step with herself and her colleagues to make sure that our justice system recognises the very particular characteristics that are inherent in those kinds of cases. I appreciate Ms Fabiani's long-standing interest in the time bar matter. The time bar for civil cases is important to stress that there is no time bar on criminal cases. I am sure that Ms Fabiani and others recognise and understand that. However, it is important that, as a Government, that we acknowledge and recognise that the time bar in civil cases is an issue of high priority to survivors. I am pleased to say that Paul Wheelhouse, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, was, along with myself and Eileen Campbell, the Children's Minister at the interaction event that is organised by the Scottish Human Rights Commission this Monday. He is there to be listening to the views and concerns of survivors. She is right to say that the Scottish Law Commission did look at this. It is complex. There is some flexibility for judges in terms of the time bar, but, nonetheless, it remains of a great concern to survivors. Paul Wheelhouse, as I said in my statement, has written to key stakeholders in the legal sector asking them to discuss these matters with him. As a Government, we will continue to work with survivors as Mr Wheelhouse's discussion with the legal establishment, so that, as a Government, we indeed have the fullest understanding of the civil justice barriers that are faced by survivors. I warmly welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement of an inquiry. I am sure that it will be warmly welcomed by the survivors of historic sexual abuse who, in order to live and flourish to move on from being survivors, need to have a clear narrative published and placed in the public record that makes it clear who was accountable and who remains accountable. I wonder if the cabinet secretary therefore agrees with me that telling their stories so that we all understand the unimaginable horrors that they have gone through and that we can all resolve never to have that lived again by any child is a crucial part of this task. Therefore, in putting it together, we need not just lawyers and social workers, we need archivists, we need historians, we need those from many disciplines. Will she therefore ensure that the terms of reference contain those actions, which can allow us not only to understand what has taken place, but to make sure that it never ever happens again? I am very pleased that Michael Russell is in the chamber today. I know that he has been a strong champion of the support that survivors much need, and he has also been a very strong advocate for an inquiry. The point that he makes about that personal testimony of survivors is a powerful one, because that personal testimony of survivors is very salient to what we need to learn as individuals and as a nation. I spoke earlier in the response to Mr Pearson about how the importance of that national collective account of what has happened and who is responsible, and how it is helpful to individuals piecing together their own life and their own personal history. As Michael Russell says, that national picture and account of what has happened is imperative for us all to move forward collectively as a nation to ensure that we learn the lessons of the past. That is a very important purpose of an inquiry to fully understand what has happened and why and to compare it to what happens today, because there is never any room for complacency when it comes to protecting our children. Protecting our children has to be our number one priority in all matters. It is therefore important that, as we progress in our consultation with survivors, we craft the terms of reference in the right way and that, as we move forward in our consultation with survivors, we give appropriate consideration to the skills of all those involved, either directly in the inquiry or as the work of the inquiry moves forward. He makes the point that that is not just about legal experts or human rights experts or people from care, support, health, education and social work. I think that there is a need to look at the broader range of skills from a broader range of individuals to ensure that we do indeed have that accurate and very alive account, that national account of what has happened and what has went wrong in the lives of so many of the nation's children. Before I call Margaret McDewill, can I say that, as I indicated at the outset, I intend to allow the statement and members to ask questions. I have another seven members who wish to ask a question of the cabinet secretary. I intend to take all of them. That will have an impact on the debate that comes afterwards, so those who may be speaking in the debate afterwards be prepared to cut your speeches. Margaret McDewill followed by George Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I heard what the cabinet secretary said in response to Graham Pearson's question, and that, from here on in, records will be protected. In some cases, survivors have been told that there is no evidence to support their claims because records have been destroyed. In some cases, those responsible for the abuse have died or their whereabouts are not known. What hope can you give survivors that those cases will be included as part of the inquiry? I appreciate that there are great difficulties in terms of the history of missing records. I give Graham Pearson and Margaret McDewill an undertaking to ensure that everything is being done. We will go out and engage with appropriate stakeholders, whether it is health services or social work services, to ensure that we do everything that we can to retrieve records where they still exist and to ensure that we have the best practice in terms of moving forward. Obviously, there are legal requirements in terms of the maintenance and protection of information contained in records. However, the whole purpose of an inquiry is to work with survivors, to enable survivors to move forward, to get to the truth, to get to justice, to give survivors that much-needed public acknowledgement and validation of what they have experienced and, of course, as I said earlier, to create that very comprehensive national record. I ask the cabinet secretary if she will bring forward legislative changes to extend the extraterritorial effects of sexual offences against children, to include offences committed elsewhere in the UK so that they can be prosecuted in Scotland, if needed? This is a very important matter that has been taken forward by my colleagues in justice. It is important to remember that the situation around extraterritorality does not mean that sexual offences against children cannot be prosecuted. That said, it is correct that such cases can only be prosecuted in the part of the UK where the offence was committed. For example, if an offence is committed in England, it can only be prosecuted in England and such offences cannot by law be prosecuted in Scotland. The Scottish Government Ministerial Working Group on Child Sexual Exploitation, which was reported earlier this year, considered very much that there is a case for extending the extraterritorial effect of sexual offences against children to include offences committed elsewhere in the UK so that they can be prosecuted in Scotland, if that is the best place to conduct the prosecution. The Scottish Government agrees with the recommendation of that working group, and we intend to introduce legislative change when there is a suitable legislative opportunity. I welcome the statutory public inquiry into historical abuse and also welcome the cabinet secretary's clear commitment to the issue. I have constituents who have been affected and one of the issues raised consistently is indeed the time bar. I know that she will agree with the human rights commission's view when they said that the time bar is a real barrier to survivors getting access to civil justice. It lacks flexibility, survivors are indeed denied justice. Can I ask her quite simply, will the public inquiry be able to comment on the issue of time bar? As intimated in my statement, we need to do some further work with survivors on a range of issues in relation to the terms of reference for the public inquiry. I do not want to speculate too much in advance of that consultation, but it is certainly not lost in me that the time bar in civil cases is a huge issue for survivors. It is indeed one that is intimated in my answer to Ms Fabiani, one that has been pursued by Mr Wheelhouse and Mr Matheson. In tackling child sexual exploitation, can the cabinet secretary outline how she anticipates the new Police Scotland national child abuse investigation unit will improve the co-ordination and intelligence gathering around the CSE? Of course, that is an issue that Mr Matheson and Mr Wheelhouse will be well versed in and will, of course, be keeping a close eye on. From my perspective, I think that it is very valuable that the new Police Scotland national child abuse investigation unit provides a national resource with that range of very specialist skills and expertise. Of course, where necessary, it will lead and co-ordinate complex inquiries and develop better and good practice. Crucially, it will also improve links between the police and third sector and other statutory agencies that will improve the intelligent networks that are required to proactively identify cases of child abuse. It is important to note that this is a national resource and its job will be to directly support the good work undertaken by the existing structure of local police child protection units across Scotland. I know that the terms of reference of the inquiry are of utmost importance and that will take proper consideration. Can the cabinet secretary outline some of the work involved in the process of drafting those until survivors why it will take until the end of April before they know what the terms of reference are? Although I take on board the point that the cabinet secretary makes about sense over haste. As we move forward over the next few months, it is important that we consult in a way that it enables survivors to participate. We have written to various organisations that are currently funded through Survivor Scotland financial support, so there will be a number of small events across the country to engage survivors. There will also be some larger regional events that will involve health services in the third sector and children's charities. The scope and remit of the terms of reference are absolutely crucial and how those are crafted is really important in terms of ensuring that survivors have confidence in the inquiry, but also in terms of focus of purpose and having an inquiry that is going to achieve outcomes that are meaningful to survivors and that are also meaningful to us as a country. It is important that, although I do not want to speculate too much about the terms of reference, we need to have a discussion that survivors are seeking further discussion on the terms of reference, particularly on what is classed or considered to be institutional care. It is also imperative that we do not make mistakes that have happened and other jurisdictions, because I am clear that if we are taking the step that we all agreed that we should be taking the next step to having a national public inquiry, we must get it right and we therefore must work with others. We cannot act in isolation and we must get all the detail absolutely correct. I thank you for giving extra time to this important statement. I agree with the many who have said that it has taken us too long to get here. I think that you could argue with justification that it has taken us 14 years too long to get here, but having got here, I am delighted at where we are. While in opposition, senior members of the cabinet secretary's party argued vehemently that they would end the time bar within the civil justice system if and when they came to power. I have listened to the responses given to Linda Fabiani and Jackie Baillie very carefully, but can I ask her genuinely what is to stop her ensuring that the inquiry itself not just discusses but actually suspends or looks at the suspension of the time bar for civil cases of historic abuse? I can only say simply and succinctly to Mr Ferguson that I cannot change the past but I hope that I can work with everybody in this chamber to change the future. The time bar undoubtedly is very important to survivors and survivors are indeed being ably represented by MSPs on this matter, on a cross-party basis, and that is to be welcome. We will seriously take on board the views of all members and those of survivors, and I am pleased that Mr Wheelhouse is sitting here right next to me because he will be the lead in taking this work forward. As the convener of the Petitions Committee that brought forward the petition 10 years ago that led to the then First Minister, Jack McConnell, issuing his apology on behalf of the people of Scotland, I have retained a keen interest in the issue, but I also recall some of the issues that were raised at the time when the petition was being brought forward, especially concerns that were raised by the Catholic Church about obstacles that it foresaw in any potential inquiry. The cabinet secretary is absolutely right when she said that child abuse has no borders, but the Catholic Church at that time argued that the responsibility for institutions within the Catholic Church did have different borders because the hierarchy of the Catholic Church means that the bishops in Scotland have no responsibility for those orders, that the responsibility lies with the Holy See in Rome. Can the cabinet secretary tell us what discussions have taken place with the Catholic Church, which has overcome those potential obstacles and why they now are more comfortable with an inquiry taking place, because it is vitally important that that obstacle is removed? I say to Mr McMahon that my officials have been in touch with a range of religious organisations and children's charities. We have many religious organisations and children's charities in this country that have a past, such as the nation, that we have a past that has let our children down, and that, collectively, whether it is we as the state, the Government, religious organisations and charities, we have to look at that past square in the eye, acknowledge our failings, acknowledge the damage that is done and move forward together. One of the strengths of a public inquiry is that it gives a good opportunity to religious organisations and charities to demonstrate that they are open to participating fully and voluntarily in an inquiry and that, like the rest of us, they acknowledge the failings of the past and are utterly committed to making things right for children today and the children for tomorrow. Thank you. That ends the statement by the Cabinet Secretary on Historic Child Abuse. We move to the next item of business and