Chamber and committees

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.

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?

What do the forecasting and the spending that you have set out in your written evidence and this morning suggest for the affordability of the social security budget in Scotland in the longer term?

Thank you, Sara—that was helpful.

On a similar tack, I was interested in the link that you make in your submission between social care and the climate crisis and green jobs—I think that, ultimately, you consider social care as an area in which to create green jobs. That is something that I believe in passionately. I have often said that social care is a key sector that could be a massive help to our economy, particularly as we move towards a green economy.

Can you say more about how you believe the Government could combine its agenda of addressing financial and recruitment issues in social care with looking at broader climate justice solutions?

Thank you for allowing me to come in again, convener. I want to explore a couple of areas a wee bit further, if that is okay.

Sara, your submission mentions the evidence that was given on the impact on equalities alongside the budget and says that the top-line information was given “across portfolio areas”, but we probably need a bit more detail on specific inequalities. How can the detail be improved so that we can continue to improve in that area?

Convener, I have another question that is on a slightly different topic, if I can come back in afterwards.

Thank you for your responses, which are very helpful.

I have a further question on some of the assumptions but this time in relation to unemployment figures. You have assumed—[Inaudible.]—and you have now amended that to 4.9 per cent. How much of that employment is secure work? Do the figures break down so that we can look at how specific groups—for example, women, black and minority ethnic people and disabled people—are affected? How do they fit into the forecasts?

I echo the convener’s thanks for your flexibility on this work. In your future estimates for adult disability payment, have you estimated how many people’s awards would increase, decrease or stay the same? If so what are those assumptions?

That was really helpful. The examples from the transport and Covid recovery portfolios are useful. We can look into those in more detail.

I move to an almost completely different subject, although it is still on the budget and a feminist analysis of it. I am interested in your deliberations. What is your assessment of the impact that we might be able to have on violence against women and on services that deal with violence against women, as part of addressing some of the structural inequalities that drive violence against women and make it worse?

Good morning, Sara. Thank you for the information that you sent us in advance of the meeting and for your time today.

My questions are about social care and women’s responsibilities for work, including unpaid work. The “Equality and Fairer Scotland Budget Statement 2022-23” identified women’s responsibilities for unpaid work as a risk with regard to their ability to find paid work. Does the budget go far enough, particularly with regard to social care? Does it contain enough support to lift women out of poverty? Does it do enough to address the increased structural inequality that was seen as a risk? The question also applies to disabled people, and disabled women in particular.