Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the witnesses for joining us, for the information that they gave us in advance and for all the work that they have done, particularly during the pandemic but also before that. The work that they do is essential.

I also put on record my thanks to the previous panel of witnesses. I had intended to say that first but got straight in to questions.

I have a couple of questions on no recourse to public funds and will try to group them in the interest of time.

I ask Phil Arnold to tell us a little bit about what is coming through the Red Cross’s Scottish crisis fund. How can that fund help to reach people with no recourse to public funds? How could it work with a more statutory offer for such people? For example, is there a mechanism to develop a social security measure in Scotland that is outwith the list that the Home Office has?

Will you also speak about the excellent peer support project that the Red Cross launched recently and the “How Will We Survive: Steps to preventing destitution in the asylum system” report, so that we can have an understanding of the benefits of the recommendations in that, too?

Good morning to the panel—thank you for joining us, and for the helpful information that you have given us in advance.

I will start by exploring the issue of no recourse to public funds and how we can use mechanisms in the third sector and other sectors to support people. The JustRight submission notes the importance of making sure that people get the right information about what funds they can and cannot access, as there is a difference. It also notes that some people assume that certain funds are unavailable to them or are listed for certain purposes that mean that they cannot access them.

My question is directed to Lidia Dancu and Andy Sirel. Could you tell us about the importance of that? How could we fix the situation? What can we do to ensure that people get the information that they need?

Thank you both for that—I found that really helpful.

Could you also talk a bit about the touch points that people have with the system? Are they in the public sector? Are they in housing, or in health? Are they in the third sector? Is it all of the above? I want to get a sense of where we need to ensure the knowledge exists and what kind of network needs to be created.

There has been a cut of approximately £1 million to third sector budgets in the present budget. Do you know anything about the impact that that will have on your sector in continuing to provide support to people who have no recourse to public funds?

I direct that to Lidia Dancu and Andy Sirel.

That is really helpful.

I will move on to the approach to services. Will Pinar Aksu comment on the importance of local services, such as libraries, to those with no recourse to public funds? Relying on crisis funds is not a long-term solution; we need to look at a much more structural and systemic solution. However, will you describe the role of services in the absence of public funds?

Lidia Dancu, do you have anything to add?

I will group as much as I can together. My first question is for Pinar Aksu. Last week, Councillor Susan Aitken told the committee that there was no pause on dispersal and that it was a myth that it had been paused. I am conscious of what you said in your submission and what you have told us today. What are your views on Glasgow’s temporary pause on single male asylum seekers? Given that that group makes up the majority of asylum seekers, what impact will that have?

Next, will Pinar Aksu and the Red Cross comment on the use of hotels, and whether you believe that the Scottish Government could do something with the Home Office to reshape how it uses the £1.277 billion that we heard about earlier to put people in better accommodation in Scotland? What could they propose to local authorities on that?

A lot of constituents have contacted us to say that, although the Scottish Government has said that under-22s who are asylum seekers or refugees have access to the free bus system, they cannot access it. Will you tell us why you think that is the case, so that we can help to address the issue?

I do, and I will be brief. Thank you for setting that out, Andy. I want to say for the record that that quote from the United Nations is stark. This bill is a new low for us and I hope that it does not pass. Could you briefly set out what we can do in Scotland to ensure that there is access to the support that is available or will need to be available as a result of the bill if it passes? What can we do through our councils or the Government to protect people?

I listened carefully to the cabinet secretary’s answer to the previous question, but I would like to ask a bit more about it, particularly the issue of a public inquiry.

It is the Government’s view that such an inquiry would have to be UK-wide, given that, as has been described, trade union and employment law is reserved. However, having read the public consultation and having heard the evidence from miners as well as from police and others who were involved in the strike, I have to say that the miners’ evidence and the evidence from the police do not really add up, and I feel that the issue of how the strike was policed should be explored a little more. Of course, that will be a devolved matter; indeed, even prior to devolution, regional policing was in operation and decisions on strikes were taken by regional forces in Scotland. Given that, what would be your view on holding a public inquiry on the aspects of the strike that fall within devolved responsibilities?

I am not sure that the two things should be mutually exclusive, and I think that some questions need to be asked, particularly in Scotland. It could be helpful to have both.

I was interested in the comment in your opening remarks about the bill not seeking to apportion blame. I find that slightly at odds with the aim of giving a pardon, and I also think that it links to the point about compensation. What are your views on the way in which the strike was policed?

Good morning to you, minister, and to your officials. Thank you for setting that out.

Have you taken account of the numbers in the backlog during the Covid-19 period when considering the number of judges that might be required? Do you think that the proposed number of judges is enough? Have you considered the Lord President’s suggestion that there should be primary legislation to base the maximum number of judges on the number of full-time equivalent judges?