Chamber and committees

Can I come back on that, convener?

I cannot say if that is policy, so I do not know why you are asking me.

I do not think that it is me that you should be speaking to about that.

Good morning. I have a question following on from what my colleague Tess White has been asking about, but I wish to make an observation and to highlight something that I have highlighted with you before, minister, about LGBT Youth Scotland. I heard you saying that you have spoken to parents. I would like to you come to East Dunbartonshire, if you can, to listen to the concerns of parents there. Watch this space: they will be taken further. You are not paying attention to what is being reported in newspapers, and you and the cabinet secretary are talking about what we dislike. This is nothing to do with what we dislike in relation to an organisation; it is about facts. If you are visiting parents, it would be really good if you could visit East Dunbartonshire. I am quite happy to pass on the details. If you could speak to members of the parents groups who are very concerned with that organisation, it would be much appreciated. You could then hear at first hand where the concerns are—if that okay with you, minister.

Convener, I know that I have been allocated questions later on, but I think that they would fit best under what I have started. Is it possible for me to ask my two questions now, because they fit into what we are talking about?

First, I welcome multiyear funding; it is a good idea so that organisations can plan better.

The total number of women and children who are experiencing domestic abuse in my area of West Dunbartonshire and who asked for help rose by 7.59 per cent to 1,729 in just one year. West Dunbartonshire local authority has the second most instances of domestic abuse per 10,000 people. Once again, there has been a lack of sustainable funding for services that address violence against women and girls, meaning that many vulnerable lives are being put at risk.

The First Minister and his colleagues keep banging on about the supposed great work that the SNP Government is doing, and you have done that in the meeting, but the figures show a different picture. I have heard that you are funding the equally safe programme, but the cabinet secretary and the minister cannot possibly sit there and say that it is a good thing that figures are rising. I have talked about the overall figures for domestic abuse rising year after year and I have noted that the figures are rising in my area. It would be good to hear whether you think that you are failing my constituents and the whole of Scotland with the rise of domestic abuse incidents that are being reported.

You are talking about providing certain funds for certain areas, but there are organisations that are not being funded, and even local authorities that are not getting the money to give out. As you probably know, that is the case in West Dunbartonshire, where Clydebank Women’s Aid has ceased operating. There is an issue in that these organisations are not being funded, and that is why the system is failing. We know the incidents are going up year after year, whether it is in my local area or nationally.

I will give you an example of another such organisation; I hope that you can shed some light on how you are working with it. Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis is Scotland’s largest rape crisis centre, serving six local authority areas and making contact with at least 40,000 rape and sexual violence victims each year. However, it received only an eighth of the funding that was allocated to Rape Crisis Scotland. Inadequate funding puts the service at risk of closure, putting thousands of women at risk.

Cabinet secretary and minister, those are some of the vulnerable women in our society, who are scarred for life by these horrendous crimes. If Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis were to cease operating, would the Scottish Government accept the blame?

11:00

Can I clarify something first?

Although I agree that the benefits are there and they are important for those people who need them, it is in the public domain that people have refused pay rises because their benefits would be impacted. I want to understand from the minister and the cabinet secretary what their thinking is about that, because it is so important that we get those people who can work off benefits. The benefits bill is not sustainable, so it is important that we get those who can work off benefits and into work.

I would like to understand from both of you how you see that working. You have said that you have put money into certain funds, but how do you see it working, and how do you follow that money to see that these people are coming off benefits?

I said earlier that there was a 20,000 rise on the previous year of 800,000 working-age people who are economically inactive. That is 22 per cent of the population, which is quite a lot. How do you see that? We are talking about the budget again, but how do you see the difference? Can you say that the difference will be made, that the figures will go down and that, while those who need benefits will definitely get them, those who do not need them and can work will be in work?

I have said what I wanted to say, convener.