Chamber and committees

That is really helpful and clear. In the discussions on the national allowance, has there been consideration of the required rate for the 16 items? How is that being established? Are the increases in the cost of living being considered as part of that? How do you see the rate and the payments working? Someone mentioned Social Security Scotland earlier. Does it have a role?

It absolutely does. Will you tell us a bit more about the legal mechanism that is used to determine who is eligible? What needs to change?

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?

It is—thank you.

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?

Good morning to the panel—thank you for joining us, and for the helpful information that you have given us in advance.

I will start by exploring the issue of no recourse to public funds and how we can use mechanisms in the third sector and other sectors to support people. The JustRight submission notes the importance of making sure that people get the right information about what funds they can and cannot access, as there is a difference. It also notes that some people assume that certain funds are unavailable to them or are listed for certain purposes that mean that they cannot access them.

My question is directed to Lidia Dancu and Andy Sirel. Could you tell us about the importance of that? How could we fix the situation? What can we do to ensure that people get the information that they need?

Thank you both for that—I found that really helpful.

Could you also talk a bit about the touch points that people have with the system? Are they in the public sector? Are they in housing, or in health? Are they in the third sector? Is it all of the above? I want to get a sense of where we need to ensure the knowledge exists and what kind of network needs to be created.

There has been a cut of approximately £1 million to third sector budgets in the present budget. Do you know anything about the impact that that will have on your sector in continuing to provide support to people who have no recourse to public funds?

I direct that to Lidia Dancu and Andy Sirel.

That is really helpful.

I will move on to the approach to services. Will Pinar Aksu comment on the importance of local services, such as libraries, to those with no recourse to public funds? Relying on crisis funds is not a long-term solution; we need to look at a much more structural and systemic solution. However, will you describe the role of services in the absence of public funds?

Lidia Dancu, do you have anything to add?

I will group as much as I can together. My first question is for Pinar Aksu. Last week, Councillor Susan Aitken told the committee that there was no pause on dispersal and that it was a myth that it had been paused. I am conscious of what you said in your submission and what you have told us today. What are your views on Glasgow’s temporary pause on single male asylum seekers? Given that that group makes up the majority of asylum seekers, what impact will that have?

Next, will Pinar Aksu and the Red Cross comment on the use of hotels, and whether you believe that the Scottish Government could do something with the Home Office to reshape how it uses the £1.277 billion that we heard about earlier to put people in better accommodation in Scotland? What could they propose to local authorities on that?

A lot of constituents have contacted us to say that, although the Scottish Government has said that under-22s who are asylum seekers or refugees have access to the free bus system, they cannot access it. Will you tell us why you think that is the case, so that we can help to address the issue?