Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a short follow-up question, and then I will move on to my final area of questioning, which is on third sector budgets.

As the cabinet secretary has set out, the Scottish welfare fund certainly should not be a substitute for proper strategic support and a social security system that is there for people when they need it. However, the data shows that people are making repeated applications to the fund, which suggests that they are moving from crisis to crisis—that probably reflects the poverty that they are in. Therefore, it is likely that we need to do more to address the poverty that they are experiencing.

About £5 million of the £41 million that the cabinet secretary has set out is for administration. That leaves approximately £35.9 million, £30 million of which has already been spent, and we are only seven months into the year. I ask, again, whether the cabinet secretary thinks that the budget will stretch to where it needs to this year, given that the incomes of a number of people and organisations, particularly those in the creative and hospitality industries, will drop or have dropped in previous weeks as a result of the omicron variant.

If it is all right, I will roll in my other question, which is about the third sector. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the disappointment of organisations in the third sector, including the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, about the £800,000—nearly £1 million—cut to the third sector’s fiscal budget, which sits in the cabinet secretary’s portfolio. The SCVO has said that that will have significant impacts on the ability of the organisations that it represents to do their job, and it has called the cut “a severe blow”.

What does the term “infrastructure cost” cover? Will the decision translate to cuts in the funding that is provided to community services? Does the cabinet secretary think that the third sector is getting enough money?

I understand that there are complexities involved. I should declare an interest as someone who receives personal independence payment. I know the importance of the safe and secure transfer. I do not want the money to drop off and the mobility van not to be there, so I get the importance of that. Had you asked disabled people and unpaid carers now what was most important, I think that they would also say that you need to consider eligibility and adequacy.

Earlier, the cabinet secretary characterised the 90 per cent of funding going back to the DWP as administration—she said that it is not dealing with policy and that we are dealing with policy here in Scotland. I think that what has been described is Scotland changing the administrative process; from what I can tell, those changes look to be positive, but we are still not changing any of the policy substantially.

Given the complexities that the cabinet secretary has just set out and which we understand exist, can she confirm that the review can begin on the policy work before the safe and secure transfer? It is not necessarily on the building work of Social Security Scotland to make the payments but on the policy work that the social security team in the Scottish Government is doing so that there is plenty of time and we do not face a situation after the roll-out of the safe and secure transfer similar to that with the roll-out of the Scottish child payment where, yet again, we could face a delay because we have not been prepared.

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?

Good morning to the committee, the clerks and the cabinet secretary. I thank the cabinet secretary for joining us this morning, and for setting out her vision and the budget.

As it stands, only one in four children will benefit from the doubling of the Scottish child payment. As the cabinet secretary knows, we support the doubling of the Scottish child payment—I think that most MSPs do—but we think that it needs to be doubled again to meet the targets. As it stands, only one in four children will get the doubling because the higher rate applies only to children under the age of five, for some of the reasons that the cabinet secretary has just described. However, that still means that only one in four will get it. That leaves hundreds of thousands of children on Scottish child payment bridging payments: 170,000 will be left without access to the doubling of the payment and 125,000 children will not have access to the bridging payments. Will the Government double the bridging payment so that those families who get it will also get £20 a week? I ask the cabinet secretary to tell us a little bit more about some of the complexities with the data that she just described.

Thank you for your answers so far, cabinet secretary. I think that people will find it quite frustrating that we are still sending 90 per cent of the social security budget back to the DWP to administer. It is quite unfair to say that it would just be simpler and better if we were doing it here, ourselves; I am not sure that really is the case.

On the rate for unpaid carers allowance, you know that my party thinks that the carers allowance needs total reform. We need to get moving on that for unpaid carers and disabled people. Bill Scott gave evidence to the committee a few weeks ago. He said that had the disabled people and unpaid carers who were asked for their opinions on priorities known that “safe and secure” transfer of benefits would mean that there would be no significant change to eligibility for, or the amounts of, those payments until at least 2025, and possibly 2026, which is nearly 10 years after they were asked the question, they might have prioritised something else.

I have one question on carers and one on PIP specifically. When the Carers Allowance Supplement (Scotland) Bill came to the committee, carers told us how important it was that the carers allowance supplement had been doubled, and how important it is that that should happen again in the future. When he attended, the minister said that we did not need to write into primary legislation that the payment would be doubled, and that when you looked at unpaid carers assistance there would be regulations that would allow the Government to double the payment, if that was the will of the Parliament. We do not see any indication of that in the budget, so does that mean that the Government has tied its own hands? Can carers expect a double payment of the carers allowance supplement again this year?

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?

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.