Seòmar agus comataidhean

I asked about the realisation of the fears, at the early stages of the pandemic and throughout it, that lockdown would have a significant impact on violence against women and the violence that they experience.

Good morning to the panel, and thank you for the submissions that you sent us in advance of the meeting, which have been really helpful. I put on record again my support and thanks for the work that your organisations have done not just in this year, which has been particularly difficult, but in all the years that you have been working with the people whom you work with.

My first question is about the context of the pandemic. Zero Tolerance said in the submission that it sent to us that the

“failure to address equality and human rights in the terms of reference for the Covid Inquiry indicates that we have some way to go in the mainstreaming of equality and human rights.”

Will you talk a bit about whether enough information is available on the effects of the pandemic on domestic abuse and violence against women and, in particular, against black and minority ethnic women and disabled women? Are you seeing some of the fears that have been expressed about the effect that lockdown could have on violence against women and girls being realised? What can we do to encourage the Covid inquiry to look at that as well?

If possible, could Mariam Ahmed and Tumay Forster answer those questions, please?

Thank you. Joy Lewis, Mariam Ahmed and Sara Medel Jiménez want to come in. We will go to Joy next.

Sorry, convener. Would it be possible to have time to ask another question, or do you want to come back to me at the end?

Yes, please—that would be helpful.

Earlier on, a comment was made about the unpaid work of people—[Inaudible.] That particularly struck me, because I can see how you will have had to put in considerably more hours of support. What do you think the solution to that is? Do you think that the people and organisations that you work with are getting enough financial support to recruit the number of staff who are needed to address some of the problems that you have raised?

I thank the panel for their opening statements and for the testimonies that they have already given. I have been furiously trying to take notes as I have been listening. It has been very helpful. I also thank you for everything that you have done during the past couple of years. It has been a significantly more difficult two years for the people that you represent than for many of us in Scotland.

My first question is about the financial security of the women that you support and the risk that women’s unfair responsibility for unpaid care and domestic work could get worse during the budget process. Farah Farzana, Joy Lewis and Mariam Ahmed might want to answer. Has the ability to find paid work and an income been put seriously at risk during the pandemic? You have already touched on some of that. What is the current picture of the financial situations of the families that you represent?

I did not write down the name of the person who made that comment early on. If the person who said that remembers that they said it, maybe they could come back on it. Otherwise, maybe Mariam Ahmed or Farah Farzana could answer the question.

It is—thank you.

Thank you.

I thank the members of the panel for their testimony. I especially thank Micheleine Kane. From your description of what you have had to go through and the time that it has taken to get action, I am not surprised that you are fed up. Thank you very much for sharing your experience with us. As Miles Briggs said, I hope that the committee and the Government listen carefully to what you have said.

I have a couple of questions, which I will run together in the interests of time. My first one relates to the issue of a national allowance, and it follows on from Jeremy Balfour’s. Micheleine Kane talked about the fact that someone two doors down can be offered a different amount. I do not think that that is tolerable, and I cannot see any other way to address it.

I agree with Alison Gillies that the first principle must be that there should be a race to the top. That is absolutely true. If the allowance was paid nationally, what would we need to do to make sure that everybody who needed to get money got it? Specifically in relation to the issue of whether children have been looked after, what mechanism could be used to ensure that the discretionary approach that might be applied to make sure that some people get money in a way that others do not could be applied nationally?

In a similar vein, I would like to ask Micheleine Kane how involved kinship carers have been in the national conversation about a national allowance. I fear that you have not been involved in that conversation, and I hope that you will be. I am keen to hear about that.

Also, who made the decision about which agency to make responsible for the kinship care service? Do you know why they did that?

Finally, I was really concerned about Alison Gillies’s point about affluent kinship carers ending up getting up more money than people who are worse off. Is guidance needed to fix that? How can we sort that?