Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

I am happy to bring in Alison Byrne to confirm, but my understanding is that local government funding is still to be allocated through a system that is to be agreed with COSLA but that other funding streams have been allocated. Alison Byrne might have further information, particularly on the Scottish Refugee Council.

The success of the Syrian scheme was very much that all 32 local authorities were involved in it. I am grateful that local government has agreed that all 32 local authorities expect and are ready to be involved in the Ukraine scheme. We will not pick an arbitrary number in our approach to how that will be split; it will be about where there is availability and where we know that we can provide support.

Mr Cameron rightly alluded to the fact that a larger Ukrainian community is based in Edinburgh. We are aware of that, and it might well point to more people arriving in Edinburgh through the family route and perhaps not so many through the supersponsor route. Those issues will all be considered, and there will be a clear triage, allocation and matching process, in which we will involve local government, to ensure that we get people in longer-term accommodation as quickly as possible. We will also ensure that we have wraparound support in other areas as soon as possible so that people can find a way to get a more normal life and recover from the trauma that they have experienced as quickly as possible.

There are two very important issues there. First, Mr Cameron will remember well that I was the minister who moved the motion to withhold legislative consent from the Nationality and Borders Bill. It has been a very consensual meeting thus far, so I do not want to break that, but my comments on that are clearly on the record. Given the situation, we can see that the bill was short sighted—it has been shown to be so.

We maintain a very good and positive relationship with the UK Government at a ministerial and official level in relation to the response to the issue. From the conversations that I have had with the likes of Lord Harrington, I believe that the UK Government genuinely wants the approach to work; it is keen to respond to our questions and to provide the information that we need as quickly as possible. I am pleased that there is a commitment to doing that. That approach is replicated at an official level; I am pleased that there is a good working relationship there, which, as you say, has not always been the case.

It should go without saying that we will treat people with the same respect and dignity regardless of where they come from, however, I will repeat the point that Scotland has a long history of welcoming people who are seeking sanctuary, which goes back decades and generations. We will continue to welcome such people, regardless of where they come from.

I am aware that there have been difficulties in previous schemes in which there has not been the same partnership approach between the UK Government, the Scottish Government, local government and the third sector as there has been in the Syrian and Ukrainian schemes. I hope that having genuine partnership working will ensure the success of the Ukrainian scheme.

We continue to do what we can to provide support for Afghanis who are in Scotland but we acknowledge the fact that, because of the way that the scheme was set up, the responsibility for accommodation lies with the UK Government. Regardless of where people come from, we are determined to do all that we can to support them in their time of need and we will continue to do that.

Under item 2, the committee will take evidence on the draft Scottish Child Payment Regulations 2020 and the Disability Assistance for Children and Young People (Scotland) Regulations 2021 (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022. I welcome to the meeting Ben Macpherson, the Minister for Social Security and Local Government, and, from the Scottish Government, Niall Wilson, disability benefits policy manager, and Kirsten Simonnet-Lefevre, principal legal officer.

I invite the minister to make an opening statement.

Good morning, and welcome to the second meeting in 2022 of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. Our first item of business is a decision on whether to take item 4 in private. Do members agree to do so? I am just looking around my virtual room to make sure that all colleagues agree.

Members indicated agreement.

I would now like to bring in Jeremy Balfour, who I believe has a follow-up to a previous question.

I invite the committee to agree that the clerks and I will produce a short, factual report of the committee’s decisions and arrange to have it published. Are colleagues content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much to the minister and to Niall Wilson and Kirsten Simonnet-Lefevre for coming along this morning. Your evidence has been very helpful to us and we greatly appreciate your time, as always. I hope that you all have a lovely day.

That concludes the public part of this morning’s meeting. At our next meeting on 27 January, as the minister has already alluded to, we will be welcoming him back for consideration of the adult disability payment regulations. I now suspend the meeting and move to private session. Members should follow the link to the private session, which should be in their calendars.

I want to double check that there are no further questions from colleagues.

I wanted to seek some further clarity on the right to advocacy. SCOSS had said in its evidence that it believed that there was not a right. However, I take what has been said by Kirsten Simonnet-Lefevre in answer to previous questions. Perhaps this is something to follow up in writing in order to get absolute clarity, but my reading of what has been said is that, if there is a question or dubiety over entitlement, somebody has a right to advocacy. Could that be confirmed, please?