Seòmar agus comataidhean

::I thank the national press for the advance sight of this announcement; it would have been preferable if we had heard it in the chamber first.

Scottish Labour fully supports the establishment of an inquiry into the full extent of group-based child exploitation in order to get to the truth behind the problem. I thank the cabinet secretary for her updates and I am grateful for all the work that has been done by Professor Alexis Jay.

It seems that we do not have any early indications of what data there is to date, which the inquiry will scrutinise. The first phase was to report in the summer, but we now have an expedited timetable, which is welcome. However, I want to be clear about what has informed the decision to bring it forward. What do we know now that we did not know then? Has substantial information emerged since then? Has there been any preliminary estimation of the extent of grooming gang crime in Scotland? Given that there has been only one meeting of the review, I wonder whether, and how, substantial information has come to light. I think that the cabinet secretary has to share that information. If she is not able to share it today, I have to ask: what exactly will the inquiry be looking at, until it gets the evidence? Does it mean that the inquiry cannot get off the ground until victims come forward and give that data?

I thank the national press for the advance sight of this announcement; it would have been preferable if we had heard it in the chamber first.

Scottish Labour fully supports the establishment of an inquiry into the full extent of group-based child exploitation in order to get to the truth behind the problem. I thank the cabinet secretary for her updates and I am grateful for all the work that has been done by Professor Alexis Jay.

It seems that we do not have any early indications of what data there is to date, which the inquiry will scrutinise. The first phase was to report in the summer, but we now have an expedited timetable, which is welcome. However, I want to be clear about what has informed the decision to bring it forward. What do we know now that we did not know then? Has substantial information emerged since then? Has there been any preliminary estimation of the extent of grooming gang crime in Scotland? Given that there has been only one meeting of the review, I wonder whether, and how, substantial information has come to light. I think that the cabinet secretary has to share that information. If she is not able to share it today, I have to ask: what exactly will the inquiry be looking at, until it gets the evidence? Does it mean that the inquiry cannot get off the ground until victims come forward and give that data?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

This week, Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis closed its waiting list for two specialist services. That decision has come as a consequence of real-term cuts in the Government’s proposed budget funding for rape and sexual support services. I do not need to remind the First Minister that sexual crimes have never been higher—the data shows that there has been an 11 per cent increase in attempted rapes. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the Government’s commitment to tackling the epidemic of violence against women and girls with

“a budget that reduces the real-terms value of the very services designed to respond to it.”

Those were the exact words of the director of the Glasgow service.

How does the First Minister justify a real-terms cut of £3.9 million to the delivering equally safe fund, when, as he keeps telling me in response to every question that I ask, it is the Government’s core programme for addressing violence against women and girls? Why does the Government believe that it is acceptable to withdraw that vital support from women and girls who have experienced rape and sexual violence at a time when the demand for those services continues to rise?

This week, Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis closed its waiting list for two specialist services. That decision has come as a consequence of real-term cuts in the Government’s proposed budget funding for rape and sexual support services. I do not need to remind the First Minister that sexual crimes have never been higher—the data shows that there has been an 11 per cent increase in attempted rapes. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the Government’s commitment to tackling the epidemic of violence against women and girls with

“a budget that reduces the real-terms value of the very services designed to respond to it.”

Those were the exact words of the director of the Glasgow service.

How does the First Minister justify a real-terms cut of £3.9 million to the delivering equally safe fund, when, as he keeps telling me in response to every question that I ask, it is the Government’s core programme for addressing violence against women and girls? Why does the Government believe that it is acceptable to withdraw that vital support from women and girls who have experienced rape and sexual violence at a time when the demand for those services continues to rise?

This week, Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis closed its waiting list for two specialist services. That decision has come as a consequence of real-term cuts in the Government’s proposed budget funding for rape and sexual support services. I do not need to remind the First Minister that sexual crimes have never been higher—the data shows that there has been an 11 per cent increase in attempted rapes. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the Government’s commitment to tackling the epidemic of violence against women and girls with

“a budget that reduces the real-terms value of the very services designed to respond to it.”

Those were the exact words of the director of the Glasgow service.

How does the First Minister justify a real-terms cut of £3.9 million to the delivering equally safe fund, when, as he keeps telling me in response to every question that I ask, it is the Government’s core programme for addressing violence against women and girls? Why does the Government believe that it is acceptable to withdraw that vital support from women and girls who have experienced rape and sexual violence at a time when the demand for those services continues to rise?

This week, Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis closed its waiting list for two specialist services. That decision has come as a consequence of real-term cuts in the Government’s proposed budget funding for rape and sexual support services. I do not need to remind the First Minister that sexual crimes have never been higher—the data shows that there has been an 11 per cent increase in attempted rapes. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the Government’s commitment to tackling the epidemic of violence against women and girls with

“a budget that reduces the real-terms value of the very services designed to respond to it.”

Those were the exact words of the director of the Glasgow service.

How does the First Minister justify a real-terms cut of £3.9 million to the delivering equally safe fund, when, as he keeps telling me in response to every question that I ask, it is the Government’s core programme for addressing violence against women and girls? Why does the Government believe that it is acceptable to withdraw that vital support from women and girls who have experienced rape and sexual violence at a time when the demand for those services continues to rise?