Chamber and committees

I am not asking anyone to declare an interest in the matter.

This is a big issue. We have an ageing population, and older people face many challenges. Particularly in the past two years, we have seen the challenges of isolation and of getting back into employment, and we have seen issues with care at home. Without wishing to prejudge, those will be some of the issues on our agenda in the coming months.

If the committee decides this morning to allow the group to go ahead, we will begin by trying to get as much information as possible about the experience of the past two years, so that the cross-party group can feed that into the public inquiry into Covid-19 that will take place. That will give an insight into the experiences of organisations and individuals across Scotland. We will look at other issues after that.

I hope that the group will be able to continue, and I am happy to answer any questions.

This group is slightly different from the two that were previously discussed, because it was the very first cross-party group to be established in the Scottish Parliament, back in 2000. Unfortunately, due to administrative issues and because Sandra White chose not to stand for re-election, we were a little slow in getting our ducks lined up. We have them lined up now and are keen and ready to go.

Without being too rude, I note that the group applies to most of us, because Age Scotland now defines being old as being over 50.

Believe it or not, that list has been culled. The list was twice that size. Before proceeding, we emailed everyone who had been part of the group in the previous Parliament, but about half of them had moved on or were no longer involved. It is a large group.

On Tuesday, we had a meeting of the cross-party group on disability, and it was interesting that almost everybody wanted to do it by Zoom. That makes a massive difference. Instead of having to come here, as used to be the case, people can log in whether they are in Inverness, Aberdeen or elsewhere. That will probably be the model that we look at in the future, at least for the majority of our meetings, because it means that people can take part.

It is a large group, so we have an official smaller working group that meets to set the agenda, which is then fed into the wider group for approval. For me, having a larger group is a positive, because there is such diversity. If you have 50 to 100-plus people, that is a lot of different interests, and some people are working, some are retired and so on.

In the previous parliamentary session, when we used to meet here, we had to take the largest meeting room, because it was jam-packed. We hope to have some face-to-face meetings as well.

Thank you.

Looking at the numbers that we have, I see that Glasgow is taking the overwhelming majority of individuals and central Scotland is taking the rest. One of the issues that we looked at in the previous parliamentary session was whether there should be a greater distribution of individuals across the whole of Scotland, which would have advantages and disadvantages. Based on the figures, and starting with the Western Isles, do you think it would be more helpful if people who came here were distributed across the whole of Scotland, rather than in one or two local authority areas?

That would be helpful. Issues such as health and education are devolved. If there are other policy areas that you feel have just been forgotten about or missed in relation to asylum seekers, could you let us know in writing so that we can follow up with the Scottish Government on areas where more can be done on devolved issues? I am conscious of time, so I would be obliged if you could do that in writing.

My first question is for Alistair Dinnie. I should declare for the record that Alistair Dinnie and I worked together when I was at the council, so I know him.

We are running out of time, but I think that one of the things that worked very well in Edinburgh was the Syrian project. Could you write to the committee to give us some information about how that worked, why it worked so well and any lessons learned? I know that there is a lot in that question, so it might be easier if you could provide that information in writing, rather than giving us a brief answer.

Some of the issues that we have talked about are reserved, but there are issues that are devolved. I was slightly surprised to learn from one of the submissions that the free bus travel for under-22s has not been extended to asylum seekers.

Andrew Morrison, what discussions did you have with the Scottish Government about that? What reason did the Scottish Government give for not granting that to asylum seekers?

If a greater number of people were to come to an authority such as yours, what extra resourcing would you require to be able to make sure that the appropriate services and facilities were available?

Andrew Morrison, from a COSLA perspective, is having a greater geographical spread something that we should be looking to bring about by way of a policy decision? Legal advice was another issue that came up last time. People who provide legal help mostly work in Edinburgh and Glasgow and it was clear that it would be very difficult for an asylum seeker to get legal advice in more remote parts of Scotland. I do not know whether the possibility of remote consultations might have changed that and it would be interesting to get your reflections on that. However, should we be striving for greater spread, or do you think that how we are working at the moment is the right policy?