���˿���

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?

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?

I return to a previous question, in which you were asked about miners who travelled to participate in a picket.

I am interested in your point about convictions of women at the time. Looking at a broader scope for the bill, in order to support people who were convicted not for going to a picket line but for things such as collecting for the strike fund or participating in another way, could perhaps be a method by which women who were involved at the time could be pardoned.

It would also be interesting to broaden the scope of the bill from another perspective. A lot of people right now will look back and think that they would like to have stood in solidarity with the miners. I am one of those people. I was very young at the time of the strikes, but I heard about them and knew what was happening; they were a topic of conversation. I feel that, if we broaden the scope of the bill, we will be saying to people that it is okay to stand in solidarity with others and that they will not have to experience what those people did. That is quite important. I know that Unite the union and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen—ASLEF—have both made that suggestion. How might we include in the bill’s scope some of the activity that took place that was not about travelling to picket lines or being on a picket line?

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?

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?

Thank you, convener, for indulging me with a further question. I am keen to understand a bit about the support for women in the refugee and asylum-seeking community who are experiencing domestic violence. I note that there are concerns about the lack of clarity and the funding gaps. Could Pat Togher and Councillor Aitken set out their understanding of those issues and say what they can do to support women in those circumstances?

I put on record my thanks to Glasgow Women’s Aid and women’s aid organisations across the country for the work that they have done to support women this year and in many previous years.

Good morning to the panel members, and thank you for joining us.

I have a few questions about the mechanisms that a number of organisations, including local authorities, have used during the pandemic to support people with no recourse to public funds. For example, that was done through self-isolation support. I am particularly keen to hear more about the public health legislation measures that were used and about how else we could use such mechanisms to support people who have no recourse to public funds.

I have another couple of questions, but I ask COSLA in the first instance, and then possibly Pat Togher, to talk about the examples and mechanisms. After that, I have a couple of follow-up questions.

Can you tell us a bit more about the mechanism that you used for the self-isolation support grant? Also, because you mentioned it, I will pick up on the point about housing and homelessness. Obviously, this week, we have heard about the 27 per cent increase in homelessness in Glasgow. The Government has said that that is partly due to the increased number of applications from refugees who have been granted leave to remain. Will you elaborate on why that would have had that sort of effect on the number of homeless applications?

I realise that those are two separate questions but, since you touched on the issue, I am keen to ask about it. I also have one further question in the area.

I have three short questions, and I will try to be brief. I put on record my thanks for the incredible work that Maryhill Integration Network is doing for the people it supports in Glasgow. It has highlighted that it is concerned to hear about Glasgow City Council withdrawing from the UK Government’s dispersal scheme, but I think that I have heard today that that might not be the case, so I seek clarification from Councillor Aitken before I ask my further two questions.

I did but, in the interests of time, I will save it for another day.