Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.

Several of my questions on the Nationality and Borders Bill have been answered, but I want to say that I believe that it is a cruel and impractical bill that does not achieve what it sets out to achieve, even if we do not agree in the first place with what it is meant to achieve. It is important to put that on the record. I thank the panel for their answers.

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.

Yes, no problem. Thank you for that clarification.

You mentioned that some of the provision that local authorities put in place was on housing, particularly during the pandemic. The Government has said recently that the increase in homelessness applications in Glasgow was possibly because of an increase in applications from refugees who have been granted leave to remain. While you are on the subject of housing, will you elaborate on why that would have such an effect on the number of homelessness applications?

Can any of the panel members from Glasgow help with that?

Thank you for that lengthy and detailed answer. In the interests of time, there are a couple of points that I will follow up on outwith this session. I appreciate you putting that on the record.

An organisation called the Bridges Programmes contacted the committee ahead of today’s meeting and explained its concerns about a number of changes that were made during the pandemic that did not take into account minority groups in the way that they could have. We know that that is seen across minority groups. For example, it seems that consideration was not given to the experience of the people who were living in such accommodation.

How important is it that asylum seekers and refugees are included in the Covid-19 inquiry in Scotland? I direct that question to Councillor Aitken and Andrew Morrison.

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.