Seòmar agus comataidhean

I speak in support of amendment 16. I understand that it will not go to a vote today, but I reiterate my colleague Richard Leonard’s calls to the cabinet secretary to produce a financial resolution ahead of stage 3. My colleague Fulton MacGregor has noted that the Presiding Officer has said that we cannot vote on the amendment today, but the Presiding Officer did not say that the bill was not the place to include compensation. The Presiding Officer said that, because the bill did not have a financial resolution, we could not consider the amendment. The reason why there is not a financial resolution is not that the bill is not competent to consider it; it is because the Government did not produce one. The Government did not produce one because it has said that, until now, financial compensation would be the responsibility of a different Government.

This is an example of putting our money where our mouth is. If we think that this Parliament can offer the pardon to miners that they deserve, we must also agree that Parliament has the competence to pay them compensation. If it does not have the competence to do that, what competence does it have to offer the pardon? The two must go together.

I do not want to delay the bill, because time is of the essence, but I reiterate my colleague Richard Leonard’s points about the speed at which legislation can be introduced and progressed when the Government wants to do so. We have shown that during the Covid pandemic and we have seen various other examples of that, the Carer’s Allowance Supplement (Scotland) Bill being one. I urge the Government to reconsider this issue.

Finally, on my colleague Alexander Stewart’s comments about this being an issue for the UK Government, I would love more miners to be pardoned in other jurisdictions, but this is a bill of the Scottish Parliament and it is a bill to acknowledge the injustice felt by miners. As we know, the injustice was at the hands of the police, the sheriffs and the justice system, all of which were part of the separate legal system in Scotland at the time, and for which the Scottish Parliament assumed responsibility later. It is not sufficient to say that this Parliament does not have the competency to consider the issue of compensation, so I would urge the Government to seriously consider the financial resolution that would be required. At least, then, if the Government does not necessarily believe that compensation should be paid—although I think that colleagues do believe that—Parliament can make that decision for itself at stage 3.

Good morning to the committee, the cabinet secretary and all those who have joined us in the public gallery.

I will start by moving the amendments in my name, in case I forget at the end. I move amendments 4A, 4B, 13 and 14 in this group—

I will direct it to Jim McPake and Charlene Kane.

No. I will just say thank you.

The question is for Charlene Kane and Jim McPake, please.

Conor or Lawrie, please.

Good morning. Thank you for all the information that you shared in advance, and for the work that you have been doing this year—I hear how hard it has been. Some of what you have said is hard to hear, so I cannot imagine how hard it must have been to deliver the service that you have had to deliver over the past year—thank you for doing it. I am genuinely terrified for people just now. I do not know how they are going to meet their bills and pay for food or basics, as you have said, and I think that we need to do much more than we are doing.

My first question is on the support that your organisations get and need. Charlene Kane, Matthew Irvine and Alan McIntosh have touched on the financial pressures on their organisations and what that means. Will you say a little more about the pressures that you are under and whether the Government has been in touch with you to talk about how to manage the demand? I ask Charlene and Matthew to answer that.

I, too, thank the panel members for their answers so far. I have one quick follow-up question on the welfare fund, and then two very brief questions on other matters.

About one third of refusals of applications for the Scottish welfare fund have been because of previous applications. Are people using it multiple times to supplement their low income?

Thank you for the information that you have shared with us just now and in advance, as well as the work that you have done over the past couple of years, which have been really hard, with the people that you represent. Those of you who listened to the previous panel will have heard some stories about the effect of that.

I will start on that, if that is okay, convener, before I move on to digital exclusion. Today is international workers memorial day and it is important for us all to remember that everything has an impact on people in their jobs. We should not have to go to our jobs and get sick or stressed. We should not have to take those jobs home, nor should they affect our mental health. Those are unacceptable experiences for everyone in the workplace. I would be keen to hear from David McNeill about the sorts of pressures the organisations that he represents are under. What is the demand on their services, specifically front-line services? Have there been any attempts by the Government or others to support that demand and to increase resources for it?

That leads to my next question. Jim McPake mentioned slogans about people having to choose to eat or to heat. You are waiting for action from the Government. The response in Scotland has been to take £150 off the council tax bill, which works out at something like £4 a week. Can you comment on that response and say what else is needed? To me, money being taken off a bill is quite different to actually getting money in your pocket.