Scotland's Justice Secretary, Angela Constance, has firmly rejected calls for her resignation following a damning report which found she breached the ministerial code on two separate occasions.
Unintentional Breaches Lead to Calls for Resignation
The controversy stems from a Holyrood debate last year concerning grooming gangs. Independent advisers concluded that Ms Constance "unintentionally" breached the code when she told Parliament that Professor Alexis Jay agreed with her view that a specific inquiry into grooming gangs in Scotland was unnecessary.
Professor Jay later contacted the Justice Secretary to clarify that the comments Ms Constance had referenced were not related to the Scottish context. A second breach occurred in December when Ms Constance phoned the professor to apologise without an official present, a requirement for transparency on such sensitive matters.
Political Pressure and Defence
The report, published on Tuesday 06 January 2026, immediately sparked demands for Ms Constance to step down. Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay labelled her "discredited" and questioned whether she had offered her resignation to First Minister John Swinney. He stated that if Mr Swinney would not sack her, she should "do the right thing and quit".
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar joined the calls, insisting the Justice Secretary had "lost the confidence of survivors" and must resign.
Addressing MSPs, Ms Constance defiantly stated: "For some people walking away is always easier than being held to account. I would much rather take the harder road of being held to account, to making amends and getting on with the job." She fully accepted the report's findings and admitted the parliamentary record "could have and should have been corrected earlier".
First Minister's Formal Reproval
First Minister John Swinney issued a formal "letter of reprove" to Ms Constance. While he noted the advisers' "unequivocal assertion" that there was no evidence her statement was deliberately inaccurate, he highlighted their criticism.
The advisers found that, given the debate's significance, further steps should have been taken to correct the parliamentary record formally. They also concluded that the decision to call Professor Jay without an official present was "an error of judgment".
Mr Swinney accepted the recommendations and urged the Justice Secretary to reflect on the events to ensure such errors are not repeated, emphasising the obligation ministers have to uphold the highest standards of propriety.
