Seòmar agus comataidhean

I return to local government funding. One of my questions is on the Scottish welfare fund.

I am quite worried about the Scottish welfare fund. We know that repeat applications are being made to it, which suggests that people are living from crisis to crisis. Not only is the Scottish welfare fund not really delivering the fundamental and strategic change that is needed due to the cost of living, but there is a significant postcode lottery in it. In addition, during the pandemic, organisations have seen a big increase in applications for their discretionary funds. When you compare that to the applications to the Scottish welfare fund, you see that the latter have not been made quite so often. Something is not quite right there.

I know that sectors such the creative industry and the hospitality industry really need some help now. A number of people who have seen reductions in their incomes could be helped through, for example, the Scottish welfare fund, but almost all of its budget for this year seems to have been spent already, when we are barely halfway through the year.

Can you set out when the review of the Scottish welfare fund will start? Will it include additional money for processing things such as the self-isolation support grant? Will you be able to promote the crisis grant to the creative and hospitality industries, so that people working in them can see that there is funding available if their income has dropped? Do you think that the current budget for the Scottish welfare fund is sufficient?

I heard the cabinet secretary’s response, but three quarters of children will not access the doubling of the Scottish child payment. She will be aware that the Scottish Labour Party has written to her to suggest ways in which we could reach some of them. It would be helpful to hear, either now or in future, why those suggestions would not work. I am also not sure whether I heard the cabinet secretary say that the bridging payments will be doubled. It would be good if I could get an answer on whether that will happen.

Finally, on a slightly different issue, the cabinet secretary set out that this is a budget of priorities. It is unfortunate, therefore, that parental employability support for some priority groups—specifically, young parents and disabled people—has been reduced to zero. Can the cabinet secretary elaborate on the reasoning for that, given calls by organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to target spending on measures to reduce child poverty at those groups?

I hear what you say about carers allowance and support for unpaid carers, but unpaid carers have also consistently said that money through those routes and the additional support for respite are not cutting it for them, as 82 per cent of carers have had no access to respite recently; 73 per cent of children and young people caring for a parent have been unable to access respite support; and in 2019, which was before the pandemic, less than a third of carers said that their need for a break was considered. It is about putting money into people’s pockets. When we asked the minister about this in the committee, he said that we should not worry about doubling the carers allowance supplement if that was felt to be needed, as the regulatory powers were there to do it, so I hope that the Government will look at that again. As Covid cases rise again, there will undoubtedly be much more pressure placed on unpaid carers.

On the adult disability payment, the cabinet secretary is quite right on the point about policy. It is policy that the people want the Government to change, not just the administration. It is the policy on the eligibility for and adequacy of payments where there is the most problem. It is that part that they are begging the Government to do something about.

When people who were getting enhanced mobility support were docked under the personal independence payment, the now First Minister said:

“People who get enhanced mobility support could lose up to £3,000 a year. Important though that money is, let us remember that for people in those circumstances, that loss could take away more than pounds and pence—it could take away their very independence.”—[Official Report, 13 August 2014; c 33391.]

The First Minister recognised that then. Do you think that the Government in Scotland is making the policy changes that it needs to around the disability payment to reflect the criticisms that the First Minister made then of PIP? Have you used your powers fully to create a fairer system as disability benefits become fully devolved?

I will follow up on third sector funding. In its written evidence to the committee ahead of this meeting, the SCVO highlighted that, although the cut to the budget might be perceived as being small in relation to the budget line for which the cabinet secretary is responsible, it will weaken support for voluntary organisations and volunteers across Scotland

“at a time of great uncertainty.”

It says that intermediary bodies are committed to supporting the Government, but they will not be able to do that if the funding cut is not reversed. Will the £800,000—nearly £1 million—cut go ahead this year?

Thank you for your candid testimony.

I want to touch a little on compensation and on the psychological impacts that the strikes had on communities—the people who participated and their families. Could we hear a little from Bob Young and Alex Bennett—and Nicky Wilson, if there is time—about the feeling among communities at the time about the way they were being treated, and about the emotional, psychological and financial impact that that has had in the long term? I had hoped then to hear your views on compensation—I heard yours, Nicky, and I think that some form of compensation looks to be appropriate, but it would be good to hear what Bob and Alex think of that as well.

I have a supplementary question, if that is okay.

I thank both Bob and Alex for their testimony. Some of the experiences that you describe are shocking. I had thought that I had a real understanding of how bad it was, but that is incredible. What accounts for the difference between the number of arrests, disciplinary hearings and dismissals in Scotland and the number elsewhere in the UK? I ask Jim and Bob to have a go at that question.

It is, thank you, convener—and thank you so much to all those on the panel who have spoken already. Before I go on to the questions that I seek to ask, I convey my solidarity to the miners who were on strike in the early 1980s. I was really young at the time, but I heard a lot about it, and the name Arthur Scargill was commonly heard in our household. I send my solidarity to those communities, particularly Blantyre in the Glasgow region that I represent.

My specific question is a follow-up to the point that you just made, Jim, about what was going on in communities. I think that you said that the board caused tensions by exposing strikers to conflict. I was interested to hear your point about people in communities not necessarily being covered by the bill. Can you talk a little bit about the sorts of things that were going on in communities and about what was happening to those people who are not going to be covered by the bill unless—as I hope it will be—it is changed?

Thank you, Jim and Tom, for your candid, open and honest evidence this morning. I echo what my colleague Karen Adam said about stretching a hand across between miners and police over the years. The sense of that has come across strongly.

I want to ask a couple of questions about areas where things do not necessarily add up; given what we have heard this morning from the earlier witnesses and then from you. We just need help to get a little bit of clarity.

It is absolutely the case, as Tom Wood has noted, that the job of police is to protect people, their livelihoods and their homes. It was picked up earlier, however, that in some cases some people did not have that protection. In particular, people who were striking did not have that protection, and you will have heard what a witness said earlier about their cat being poisoned and their windows being smashed, and about their view that they perhaps did not get the same protection from police as people who had gone to work did. What are your views on that?

Similarly, can you help us understand the difference between the way that people tended to be treated in Scotland and how they were treated elsewhere? We know that, proportionally, there were more arrests and more people lost their jobs in Scotland. That is the first area I will ask about, and then I want to come in on one other thing.

I appreciate that; that is helpful to understand.

My last question is about the relationships between yourselves, other police authorities and the National Coal Board. You spoke briefly about those relationships earlier, but it would be good to understand a bit more about them. How much conversation went on about individuals, where they were, what they were doing and the approach that you might or might not want to take with them?

What do the forecasting and the spending that you have set out in your written evidence and this morning suggest for the affordability of the social security budget in Scotland in the longer term?