Equality and Social Justice Committee

Welcome back, to our second evidence assessment on domestic violence, violence against women and sexual violence in the migrant community. This is our second session. I'm very pleased to welcome Joanne Hopkins from Public Health Wales and Naomi Alleyne from the Welsh Local Government Association.

In our informal, private sessions with asylum seekers and other people who have no recourse to public funds because of their immigration status, we heard some very good examples of people dealing with situations appropriately, and then, obviously, we also hear about situations that are not dealt with appropriately. So, I wondered if you could just sum up what are the main challenges for public services when faced by migrant women and girls who present as victims or survivors of sexual and gender-based violence, and what are the gaps as far as public services are concerned. So, which one of you would like to go first? Jo, do you want to make a start?

I will do. Thank you, Jenny. So, I think, for me, in terms of some of the research that we've done in Public Health Wales and the ACE support hub, the outstanding challenge through all of this is the barrier of language and the barrier of not understanding perhaps the meaning of how things are communicated, both in terms of how it's done visually, but also the use of language. So, when you have somebody who's translating, that literal meaning might not be communicating what they're intending to say, in terms of the use of the language. And I think we see that as coming up over and over again in terms of accessing any services, but particularly difficult when it comes to accessing services around domestic abuse and sexual violence, because there is also, I think, in many cultures a real difficulty in trying to articulate what that actually has been in terms of an experience, and also around some of the bits that are linked to that, so that the actual act of violence itself might be something that can be communicated. But the experience of it, including the impacts on mental health, may not be recognised by the people who've experienced it in the first place, because we know that there is a large amount of stigma still in the UK around mental health, let alone in countries where it's not even discussed in any sort of public services. But then, secondly, if there is a recognition that there is an ill-health consequence of the violence that they may have suffered, often that is described as something that manifests in a physical form. So, people will describe pain, people will describe more physical health impacts, without necessarily describing mental health because they don't understand that that's the consequence of it. So, I think there's a huge issue there around being able to communicate in a way that not only explains what's happened to that individual, but also in a way that gets them the help that they actually need, because being unable to articulate, for whatever reason, what exactly is going on, I think is one of the big challenges.

Then it comes to the challenges of public service in accessing interpreters to enable that discussion, accessing interpreters that perhaps need to be of a specific gender. So, we often talk, particularly over the years in the 'Uncharted Territory' reports, which I'm sure Naomi will mention in a minute, around the need to have some choice and empowerment within this process for women in particular to be able to say that they would prefer to have a female interpreter or a female interviewer, or however they're engaging with public services, and even if that's available, sometimes it can only be made available if possible. So, there is always every chance to try and subscribe to this, but actually, in reality, are there enough interpreters? Are there enough people who are able to facilitate that conversation in that way? So, I think that, for me, is the second element of this.

And actually, what was really interesting around some of the work that we did when we just started—and when I say 'we', it's in partnership with the Wales Strategic Migration Partnership, public health, the Home Office and the Welsh Government—thinking about what we could do to better facilitate access, in particular to healthcare, and making assumptions around, 'Well, all Syrian people will want to have a Syrian interpreter to speak Arabic,' well, that's not the case. And actually, in some cases it became a real challenge because people were quite frightened about who might be the person that had been brought into that conversation and where their allegiances might be. So, I think the other thing is around perhaps not having enough understanding and cultural depth to our understanding so that we make those assumptions, perhaps, without realising, basically, the consequences of them. So, there's that lack of understanding at that sort of level of depth about people's experience.

And then I think the last thing on barriers and gaps—it's a bit intertwined here, I'm afraid; sorry, I've just realised—but one of the last things I wanted to say on this as well, I think, is that something that's come out particularly in the 'Uncharted Territory' reports, but also in some of the more recent work around whether the experience of sexual violence in particular has taken place in conflict, in another country, actually there are no real justice outcomes that are being sought in this country, in Wales. So, actually getting access to support is quite difficult when it's just the experience you're talking about, which has happened somewhere else, and there's no justice outcome that can be met. So, here is a group of people who are asking for help for something that hasn't happened in the UK, and I think that in itself is quite difficult for lots of services to get their heads around, actually, in terms of, 'Well, it's not here, it hasn't happened here. So, we understand that there might be an impact in terms of your health or in terms of sexual health or something like that, but the proximity of it is different', and I think, for me, that's something that we haven't really engaged with properly in terms of how public services understand the experiences that people have had before they've come to the UK, perhaps on the way to the UK, and then compounded perhaps by being in relationships in the UK that are still where they are being abused or subject to violence. I'll pause there.

Thank you. You both represent the everyday front-line services that somebody might be accessing—things like school, the education service, the public transport service, housing, health. How prepared are people to pick up hidden signs or key indicators that this individual, who you may never see again otherwise, is somebody where there needs to be a further conversation to establish the extent of the vulnerability of that person? Naomi, do you want to—? If you could just summarise how—. It's a difficult subject, regardless of immigration status. How well do you think people are aware of the vulnerability of people who have a complicated immigration status?

Thank you, and good afternoon to all of you. In short, I think the response to that is varied, but let me come back to that, if you like.

Firstly, I'd like to give the apologies of Anne Hubbard, who couldn't be here this afternoon. Jo has already mentioned 'Uncharted Territory' a couple of times, and Anne was the instigator of that and has been a huge advocate for addressing issues affecting migrant women around violence against women. Anne's on leave, but I know that she has submitted some written evidence to the committee.

I think one of the biggest challenges, and it does come back to your question as well, Jenny, around the indicators, and one of the biggest barriers is the complexity of the issue that we're dealing with here. There are different groups of women with different immigration statuses that have come to our attention for different reasons, and each of those is complex because each of those cases, as you all know, will be down to an individual, but it's not always easy to understand different immigration statuses and then what the entitlements are for public services. So, I think there is that difficulty there, and then we're also talking about many different forms of violence against women in this setting. I was lucky enough to catch the end of the last session that you had, so I won't repeat all the forms of violence that I know were identified, but being able to look at that as a whole and address that does need much more focused attention. The point was made in the last group that migrant women are not a homogenous group and understanding the differences and then the entitlements and what people can access and what those services are I think is complex. It's not easy, particularly for some of the areas across Wales that don't deal with these issues on a regular basis.

Being able to understand where the support services are—not only what's available, but how you access that—is also a concern. I think that does bring us back to the point that Jo was talking about around the indicators. If you look at some of the individual issues or forms of violence that can occur, there are different levels of awareness. If you look at issues around modern slavery or trafficking, there is more awareness, and there have been sessions done—a lot of that around what those indicators are that people need to look at and be able to investigate. Whether the same has been done in some of the other specific areas at the same level of awareness across all public services is probably not as well trailed, I guess, as you would want. I know we'll come on to things like the national training framework, but covering these issues as part of a broader session doesn't give the depth of understanding I think that is required, given the complexity of the issues.

I think those indicators are there, as Jo was saying. I do remember from many moons ago that how people will vocalise or communicate the issues isn't always as upfront as where people will pick up on those, so I think there is a lot more awareness that is needed, but also some support, because in some instances, you can do training, you can do awareness raising, but staff move on. It's not a one-off event; it needs to be something that's much more ongoing in terms of not only built into existing programmes, but specialist programmes as well, I think, for those that require it. So, I think there is still some more work to be done across the range of the violence that can appear and the different immigration status so that people can identify those indicators. Sorry, that was a bit long.

No, it was a really interesting answer. We'll now go and explore—. Oh, Jane Dodds, before I move to Sarah Murphy.

Just a real quickie. Jo, you mentioned about access to translators, and we heard a lot about this in our evidence to date. What resources are available to health bodies and health authorities to provide their own translators and interpreters?

As I understand it, we still have the Wales Interpretation and Translation Service, where we can access a group of interpreters that are part of almost like a bank of interpreters, but there are also things like LanguageLine, things that you can dial up and speak to people that translate it almost on the phone. I should confess I used to work in the Home Office, and that's certainly what we used in the Home Office for that sort of interaction. But I think that the trouble with all of this—and particularly COVID hasn't helped, I have to say—is that a lot of translation is not just about the words; it's about how you communicate, it's about how sometimes you can use visual cues for that sort of thing. Translators will be looking for that in someone's face and their eyes and their interaction around that. And even if you don't understand the language, I think there's a lot that can be picked up from seeing how someone expresses it. So, that's where the nuance of it is lost.

I'm not saying that there isn't interpretation available at all; what I'm saying is that when it's done in the best way that we can, there are still barriers for people to be able to communicate exactly what their requirements are so their needs are absolutely met. But I think we've come a long way, and I think there's been a lot of understanding now about the need for being more trauma informed in the way that we are engaging with people and asking them what they would like, what they need: 'Do you need a male interpreter? Do you need a female interpreter? Do you need a particular dialect? Would it be better if it was somebody who came from your own country, or perhaps a different one?' It follows from what I just said about nervousness sometimes, about who interpreters are employed by, and what information will be used for. And that can go much wider than the interpretation service. I think there's a lot of mistrust within migrant communities around public services full stop—in the health service, but wider than that they're mistrusted, they're seen as agents of the state. Therefore, it's very difficult for people to step back from that and start to trust suddenly people who previously they wouldn't have done. So, all of this added together creates a very difficult environment for somebody, I think, to be able to talk about something so personal, when, actually, it's layered on with personal shame, plus community shame, and everything else that might impact on that at the same time.

Would it be all right if I just mentioned quickly, because you mentioned schools, Jenny, that I went to visit—and I'm not just calling out this school because it's the only school that does this; I'm sure there are many examples—Pillgwenlly Primary School a year or so ago? Here is an example of how those indicators are picked up. You have engagement, not only with the child in front of you, but with the family. I had a really good discussion about some middle-eastern families and some eastern European families who were all in the classroom and had very different needs, had very different experiences, and yet that was being well thought through and they were working with the family as a whole. So, I think there are some really, really strong examples in schools in Wales, particularly in those dispersal areas that have had a lot of experience in this. As Naomi says, perhaps there are other areas that haven't had to engage in this way but could learn a lot from the really good examples that we've got across Wales of how this works well.

Thank you. I know Sarah Murphy wants to pick up on some of the complexities and challenges of this area.

Thank you very much. Thank you both for being here today. I wanted to ask some questions about immigration status and data sharing. Like you said, you watched earlier on some sessions, so it's kind of a follow-on from that to get an understanding from you to what extent you were aware of data sharing between front-line services, like local authorities, police, social services and health and the Home Office, and what you think the impact of that is potentially. Who would like to go first? Jo.

Thank you. Naomi's nodding at me. I better qualify my experience in this before we start. So, for 20 years I worked for the Home Office, and for the last 10 years of that in Wales, so I do have experience of working in immigration for a very, very long time from that side of the fence, and then for the last three years I've been working at Public Health Wales. So, I'll try not to conflate the two experiences and be very clear on which one I'm talking about.

I think, to start with, there is an improved set of data now than perhaps we had 10, 15 years ago. It is complex. We talk about section 95, 98, 4—all these different kinds of bits of language and not necessarily what does that mean. However, I think we certainly have a better picture across Wales of who people are and, as far as we can, where they are, because people move. Even if they are in a dispersal area, they can still leave. So, as far as we know, as far as we can do that, I think we do have a picture.

In terms of data sharing, I think that's where it gets more difficult, because people, as Naomi has already said, have a complex immigration status, and you can change status. So, one minute you've got no rights and entitlements, perhaps if you're in the asylum system, the next minute you have a whole load of them, and that change can happen very quickly, and it's very difficult for people to understand themselves, perhaps, what's happened and how they need to adjust to that, let alone everybody else who's trying to work out what bit of paper they should have that makes them suddenly this and then another.

I think the other problem with data sharing as well is that those agencies that need to know about the status of somebody in order to work out what they're entitled to will be looking very much for those sorts of sets of data that say what they are—they are either an asylum seeker or they're a refugee or they're a migrant or whatever. But that's not how they necessarily might see themselves. So, when they're accessing services, they may not describe themselves as coming from that sub-section of this area. And actually, data on ethnicity and nationality is quite patchy as well. It's not to say it's not there, but it's not consistently collected in a way that perhaps we can really understand how people are accessing services and how they're moving between them.

I think, from my perspective, there's a lot being done to improve data collection; how we then synthesise that and understand how people move through different systems is where this is more complicated. And it's not just related to migrants, I don't think. We have this issue in public health where we say, 'Make every contact count', don't we, but we can only do that if we know where in the system people are and what contacts they're having. I think that that's where the difficulty comes in here. So, it's laying data over data, synthesising and analysing that data and understanding what it's telling us. I think, for me, that's where the challenge lies. We're better at collecting it, we're just not so good at collectively analysing it.

Just to focus a bit on what people have said about that fear, from your perspective, is there a legal duty for those front-line services to share that data with the Home Office?

From what I recall, and I'm no longer an expert in this, when we were thinking about what the most important thing is for people—is it to access healthcare, is it to make sure that if they have COVID, they come forward and are able to access the support that they need and that we're able to treat them, or is it that we then give information to the Home Office about who they are and where they are? I think, in certain circumstances, there is a legal obligation, and it's quite complex, all of this, but I also think that, in terms of humanity, we need to think about the person who is presenting in front of us and how does that weigh up in terms of that legality. So, we have what you absolutely have to do and then we have the decisions that we've made based on those greater risks, I guess, to public health where we've said, 'Actually, it's more important that you come forward and you have a vaccination, or you come forward and you're able to access the support that you need and we will not be sharing that data'.

The fear element of it is that lack of understanding about what that data will then be used for. So, we still have a real concern, I think, particularly hearing from third sector services, around any form of data, even personal data, names and that sort of thing. Where is that going to go? They have a real fear that it will go to immigration and therefore they're going to end up being deported, or whatever. But I think that there is also a bigger piece of work that's needed here to really communicate what actually happens versus that overarching fear of what might happen. As I say, I'm not an expert in this, but I did have a look at where there are elements of legal duty and all the rest of it—if you think somebody is working who shouldn't be working and that sort of angle to it—and I think it needs to be much, much clearer. Because if you're able to understand what the data is there for and where it's going, it won't support everybody, but—. I think it's just really difficult for someone like me to try and go and have a look and see if I can find out exactly where it says there is this legal duty. I found it difficult at the time. I think that that lack of transparency is really key.

Thank you so much. I hadn't even considered what you said about needing people to come forward for vaccines, for example, so that's really interesting. I wonder if, afterwards, you could follow up with our team. It would be really interesting to know if there is a clear policy on whether or not you can refuse, and also if there is, as you said, a process in place where that decision is made and how that decision is made. That would be really interesting, I think, for us to do that.

We may need to go to the Home Office for clarity on the legality question, I think, because as far as I remember—and Naomi may correct me—it does sit in their policy and legislation. However, I can send the committee a leaflet that we produced in collaboration with the strategic migration partnership and others, which was produced during COVID and given to all families—all people, actually—who were accommodated by Clearsprings Ready Homes during the COVID pandemic, when we were in the first round of restrictions. It said very, very clearly, 'Your information will not be given to immigration; you can come forward and you can access healthcare'. I think that's an example of that.

That would be really good. Obviously, as a committee, we can ask the Home Office that. I suppose what's helpful for our committee to know is about Welsh public bodies and agencies. We need to know if you believe that you can refuse it, if you have refused and why you've refused, and if that's something that our—. Because if they're not, that's something we need to know about. Thank you so much. Naomi, is there anything that you just wanted to add to any of that?

Naomi's on mute.

I was waiting to come off mute. Just picking up on that point, I think that lack of clarity around the requirements—. So, sometimes people share the information because they think they need to, but there's not necessarily that lack of clarity as to when and where. So, I think that would be helpful to confirm that.

In terms of some of the data, I think even in terms of the collection of monitoring data, we don't ask for immigration status, so there's a lack of information, if you like. So, you may know the number of black and minority ethnic people within an area, but you won't necessarily know immigration status, and, again, some of that referral information may not pick that up. But that fear of what could happen, should their information get into the hands of people who can make decisions around whether they stay in the UK or not, and a view that being a victim will actually work against them rather than not affect their status, I think is a real concern.

I think one of the things that I did want to mention when I was looking at this is actually just understanding that the cohort of people who might be caught by being migrants will continue to grow. So, you'll be aware—obviously we've talked about refugees an asylum seekers within that—there will be an increase in the number of asylum seekers in Wales, as the Home Office has made a decision to move to full dispersal. So, all areas of Wales will have asylum seekers who don't necessarily have asylum seekers now, and I think that leads in to us needing to get some of this information and the data sharing right at the beginning, if you like. And as you were talking I was thinking, one of the processes that does work well around data sharing is the national referral mechanism for modern slavery, and maybe we do need some of the very clear frameworks and pathways of where that data and information sharing should go. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but whether there is something as effective as the NRM is an issue. It's just, again, how we can learn from things that are working in practice here, so that we can address the issues and support people.

Thank you so much. That's a wonderful idea as well. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Moving on, then, to Jane Dodds.

Thank you very much. I'd like to ask you specifically around whether you feel the services in Wales meet the needs of women and girls who have experienced violence and need support. Thank you.

I'll pick up on this, but Jo's just done some recent research. I thought I'd take that one first, Jo. I think one of the issues is, obviously, the particular concern around those who are presenting with no recourse to public funds, and the ability of services to provide appropriate support to people in that circumstance. And while some of the guidance is clearer, obviously there's still some hesitation or lack of confidence around applying some of that legislation within the circumstances. So, I think that probably leads on to the issues around awareness raising. And again, as I said earlier, it's not just the awareness raising, it's the ongoing support that we are providing to people to be able to provide the ongoing support. So, I don't think there's enough specialist services across Wales in terms of meeting the needs of migrant women. At the moment, even in terms of the Women's Aid groups—they will do as best as they can in terms of linking up those services, but BAWSO is really only that real service that can provide an all-Wales basis. But, again, the resources that it has as an organisation does need to be looked at in terms of being able to provide services to areas that may not have been its usual cohort in the past.

So, I think some of the work that's supported by organisations like Barnardo's and other third sector bodies—. So people will provide what support they can, but in terms of having clear referral mechanisms, support specialists, and often, when Jo was talking around the interpreters—it is needed 24/7. So, one of the issues around the interpreters—and we found recently with people from Ukraine—is making sure that you have enough interpreters that can provide the vast variety of services that are required at the time that you need it. So, there are useful feedbacks. But also, then, people sometimes wanting interpreters outside of Wales—making sure that there's that distinction with any link back in communities. So, there are a lot of those kinds of tips, if you like, that we need to make sure that those services meet the needs of the individuals at the time. But I think, generally, there is a need for further investment in some of those specialist services across Wales—not expecting them in all local authority areas, but knowing where they can access that support and that there will be enough support for them. So, I'm sure Jo can pick up on that as well.

[Inaudible.]—Naomi. I was going to mention—I'm sure you've heard it mentioned before, but if you haven't, you will hear it mentioned—the report that was launched on 24 May, the Birmingham university report, which was Professor Jenny Phillimore's, and what that puts really starkly, I think, is what we already knew, which is that there is a huge reliance on BAWSO in Wales to provide services for this group. I'm not saying that that's a bad thing in terms of BAWSO as an organisation, but I think what we do need is, certainly, more sustainable funding for this, but not just relying on one organisation to deliver it in a national programme. There are others that might do it more locally, but I think every organisation that they spoke to as part of that piece of work said, 'Well, we just refer to BAWSO. We don't do it ourselves, we have to refer on.' So, that's an enormous amount of pressure on one organisation.

I think, more generally, there is also—. It goes back to that we shouldn't put everybody into one homogenous group—the needs of people who have experienced any form of violence, sexual violence, whatever it is, are usually quite diverse and quite complex. So, this is not about saying, 'We just have an organisation that deals with migrants.' This is more about saying, 'Where are the opportunities to look at how people who have a migrant background or displaced people—whatever you might want to call them, whatever they might call themselves—can access the support that they need?' It may be that that's mental health support, it may be that that's perhaps support around parenting, it may be support to leave their abusive partner, or it may be something that they might need many years down the line from the event actually happening. All of those things I think need to be really thought about.

There's a lot of work going on at the moment with Traumatic Stress Wales, which Anne Hubbard is also leading, to think about that more acute response to what migrant women might need where they are presenting with some symptoms that put them in that sort of area where we're talking about maybe complex post-traumatic stress disorder or something like that. So, there's some real work going on there at the moment.

But my concern now, and if we just talk about Ukraine for a second, is people are coming here who are still in shock. They have just experienced something or are still experiencing something. We may not see the consequences of that and they may not understand the needs that they might have until many months down the line. We know, often, that in any circumstance, a survivor of domestic abuse will not ask for help immediately. We're talking 33—I think that's the stat, I'll see if I can find it for you from Safelives—33 average incidents before anybody even says that something's happening to them. So, if you add in the additional barriers that migrant women face, then we're talking about services that might need to pick up the pieces a lot further down the line. So, for me it's a more holistic issue.

Thank you so much. I'm still a little bit unclear, Jo, from your response. So, do you actually feel that there need to be more resources, more support services for migrant women in particular experiencing violence, which is what this committee is looking at?

Yes.

You do. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Yes, I do, because I think to have it just with one is not enough.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Very good. Thank you very much. Ken Skates, would you like to come in and have a look at the policy and legislative framework that we're all operating under?

Thank you for attending. How can the policy and funding framework be amended or changed in Wales to improve the availability and provision of specialist services for migrant women and girls?

Shall I jump in, Jo, if it's okay?

Go on then.

Obviously, the Welsh Government have recently launched their refreshed violence against women and sexual violence strategy, and reviewing that this morning, in light of the conversation that we were having today, I think that a lot of the strategies and the plans are there for tackling violence against women and sexual violence, but if you look through the lens of migrant women, do they cover them in that range of issues? So, when I was reviewing the objectives of the strategy this morning, each of them needs to be looked at through the lens of migrant women, and as Jo said, not talking about the homogenous group, but being able to break down some of the different experiences there as well.

There's the nation of sanctuary plan as well, so it's how these interact, and I think very shortly Welsh Government will also launch their race equality plan for Wales. So, there are a lot of strategies and plans that do have an impact or an input into this area. I think one of the issues for me is around the implementation gap. We often talk about, in Wales, the strategies and the plans, and the direction of travel is very clear, but actually, in terms of implementing, there does need to be increased training on an ongoing basis, different services that people can report to, awareness raising with migrant women themselves, but public services as well. So, I think the strategies and plans are there, it's now how we turn some of that into reality but also ensure that the needs of migrant women are addressed, because often we're talking about generic strategies and plans and expecting those strategies and plans to pick up all the different issues that affect different groups of people within that. So, I think there is still some more to be done.

I think what I would say is that coming out of this, and it's often the dual track, we do need to mainstream the issues affecting migrant women into our existing plans, our existing strategies, our existing implementation plans. But we also need to look at where those gaps are at the moment. So, you'll need a dual line to look at some of those specific steps that are required to inform people, if you like, and make sure that migrant women receive the same quality of service that we expect other women to receive when they are reporting such issues. So, I think some of that work does need to be looked at through the lens of migrant women and the issues affecting migrant women, which might lead us, then, to some different actions that do need to take place to specifically meet the objectives, then, of those strategies and plans.

Great, thank you. Jo.

Can I come in?

Yes, please.

Thank you. So, I think this really is the crux of the Public Health Wales consultation feedback, actually, towards the strategy consultation. We were very concerned that we didn't see upfront reference to displaced people in the broad sense—migrant women, refugees or asylum seekers—and we were very clear that we felt that that was an important thing that still hasn't been included in the way that we had hoped, and the reason for that, I think, is that a number of the reports that we've done have highlighted the fact that in the nation of sanctuary plan there is a section that talks about VAWDASV, but those sorts of recommendations and actions are actually quite old now, they're a couple of years old. There isn't real reference in the new strategy to this group, although it does mention, I think, in one line, the nation of sanctuary plan—we'll pick that up. I think there is a risk here that migrant women will fall down the cracks of all these plans—there isn't that bit that brings this all together. I completely understand, having worked in Government, how difficult it is to break down those policy silos, but here is a group that is falling between those silos because, as Naomi said, there's such an opportunity to look at this from a number of different angles, a number of different plans, a number of different policies, and yet each one refers to the other without really taking ownership of this.

I wondered whether—. It's an ongoing conversation, but I did wonder whether that point I made earlier about whether, because this violence has often happened outside of the UK or on the journey to the UK, that kind of separates this group slightly from us thinking, as we should do, that nobody should ever experience this form of violence. I just think there's probably a little bit more work to do, as evidenced in a number of these reports, to join that up and then join up with the UK Government as well in terms of how does this—. Because it's quite interesting that there was a whole section on migrant refugee women in the VAWG strategy, the one before last, and it completely disappeared, and we can see the political change of view and why that's happened, but we shouldn't in Wales, I don't think, follow suit. There's an opportunity here to think about the legislation that already exists, the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, and how we can use that to facilitate perhaps more support for people who are NRPF, for example. So, I think there's a real opportunity here that we could choose to take by thinking more in that joined-up way across the strategies and plans.

Great, thank you. I'm conscious of time. Just one question to both of you regarding Welsh Government support: to what extent do you think that Welsh Government could support those who have no recourse to public funds? And what are the key challenges and barriers? And then, specifically to Naomi: to what extent do you think social services across Wales have complied with the duties placed on them to meet the needs of migrant communities, as set out in the social services and well-being Act? And what more could Welsh Government do to help social services?

Shall I start, Naomi, because I've got quite a quick response on this—?

Please, thank you.

Thanks. So, Welsh Women's Aid produced a really helpful paper that they've put to Welsh Government, commending that we take forward some real thinking around the opportunities within the social services and well-being Act to provide services to people that are within the power of Welsh Government, and perhaps not to immediately push back and say, 'Well, it's not in our power.' And I think what that paper was testing was whether we are absolutely sure that there aren't areas of devolved power that we could use to support, particularly women in this group.

I think there are examples across the UK of where there have been specific organisations or activities or pilots to test how we could do things differently. And I think the ask is: could we do that here? Could we think about perhaps funding for specific places, and really just see if we can test those boundaries? I do think that the conversations at the steering group that was set up were trying to do that, were trying to think about where the red lines are for the UK Government, and could we ask them what would be the things that we absolutely couldn't do, but where are the areas that we could test a bit more? And, for me, I think that would be a real groundbreaking area for us to have a look at, because, yes, there are things that are red lines, of course there are, but I don't think we're clear enough yet about what opportunities we might have to do more for this group. And I think Anne, through the network—the NRPF network—and other areas, would be able to help us to think more about that with that steer. So, I'm hopeful, from the steering group, that there is that opportunity to take this forward, but I'm just keen, because it comes up in every report, as I've mentioned before, that this is the group that's a real concern, that have no access to anything. Naomi.

Thank you. Naomi.

Thank you. Picking up the first question around what support Welsh Government provide, I think there is a very clear vision for asylum and migration in Wales, which is around making sure Wales is seen as a nation of sanctuary and we provide that welcome and support, and, obviously, similar around violence against women. I think, again, it just comes back to where some of this meshes and what support and guidance and funding to make it happen, I think, happens at the local level. So, I think that there's a lot that we can build on here in terms of those commitments and areas. Welsh Government have a taskforce around refugee and migration issues, where this kind of conversation should be able to be vocalised and seen.

In terms of social services and the duties in terms of the Act, Welsh Government provided some detailed guidance around no recourse to public funds and the interaction with the social services Act. Sorry, I can't remember if it was pre pandemic or during the pandemic—my timing has gone over the last two years—but there is some guidance out there that was developed in conjunction with social services and the third sector to ensure that it was very clear in terms of what those duties are.

I think it is a work in progress, in terms of further work being required, which is supported by the No Recourse to Public Funds Network, and again it does come back to, in some local authorities areas, this not being something they're dealing with on a regular basis, so it's something that's newer to them and they will require that guidance and support from elsewhere to just help them through the system, but, again, following those duties. But I do understand, particularly because I've read around this subject, that it was Welsh Women's Aid that were saying that, sometimes, those duties are still not taken forward in the way that they would like to see, or that somebody says, 'Oh, it's domestic abuse; it doesn't fall within the Act.' So, again, I think that there are some bits that we can do further in terms of raising that awareness, making sure that people are understating and, obviously, you'll still be aware of what Welsh Government did under no recourse, or the change in the no recourse to public funds, with homelessness. So, what are the opportunities there? And I do understand that they launched a fund, Welsh Government, that would ask people to donate funding, which again could support other bodies, like third sector bodies, who are providing that support to no recourse to public funds.

One of the issues of concern that I know shouldn't be the way, but you'll be aware that, for funding, money that's spent by local authorities to support people with no recourse to public funds, we don't get that back. There's never been a real opportunity to put a figure on what that is in Wales. There's some similar work that's been done in England. So, I think we do need, as governments, if you like, at all levels, to be very clear around that no recourse to public funds, but being able to look at the kind of support we should and we are able to provide, and to make sure that that's provided. So, I think it is a work in progress. I think, in short, Ken, there's still further work to be done, and some of that is in train, but that doesn't mean not having continual awareness sessions and newsletters that go out that remind staff around that, particularly for those areas that don't deal with these issues on a more regular basis.

Okay, thanks for that. And, Altaf, you wanted to come in on this area of awareness about what people's entitlement is.

I think we have covered a lot of things there, but let's go through them again.

Altaf, at the moment you're breaking up, so I don't know if you could perhaps get a little closer to the microphone and hopefully that will help.

It's about awareness of the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence and the support amongst migrant communities—is there any demand for improvement, and how could this be enhanced, to help these migrant communities? I know you have answered many of these, but let's go through it again.

I think Jo was saying earlier some of the issues for women in the migrant community, and how we do raise awareness that not only domestic abuse but the violence that people can experience is wrong, but also what is available. So, I think there is more work to be done with the migrant communities themselves in terms of acceptable forms of behaviour. But how to challenge that, and how to challenge it in a safe way, or where to go for that safety? But I think the awareness raising does need to be made with public bodies as well, as I said earlier, because violence against women, sexual violence as an issue, has raised its profile over the last year, and it's increased significantly, and there's been much more work to tackle that, but not necessarily in terms of some of the other experiences that women can have at different times. So, I would support that need to make more awareness of it. But, also, we haven't talked about children and young people. You'll have more unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arriving in Wales, and, again, often people's journeys to the UK, their immigration status, does make them more vulnerable to that victimisation, in terms of the journeys of people coming. So, we know that some women who would have arrived as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children may have been assaulted through their journeys, so there are different ways that we do need to raise awareness so that we can ensure that public services can be sensitive to the needs of those groups.

Joanne, do you want to add anything?

Thank you. I missed the beginning of the question, but I think Naomi's coloured that in for me now in terms of what you might have asked, so hopefully I've picked it up. But what I was going to say was we've been doing quite a lot of work in the ACE support hub recently to try and understand better the engagement with communities. So, someone like me should not go barrelling into a community saying, 'You should do this, that and the other'. That's not going to work. So, how do we work with communities themselves to have that conversation about what is it that's needed? How do we work with people, whether it's community leaders or whether it's with people who feel disempowered? And when I say 'we', it's all of us, not me, not somebody over there, so communities don't feel that they're being threatened by yet another person from a public service coming in and telling them what to do. We had a really, really interesting conversation with a lady from Butetown who was telling me, 'Stop talking about us as if we're over there. You need to come down and visit. You need to come down', which was another sign that, 'Well, here's me barrelling in now'. 'No, no, you're coming to talk with me and I can help you and we can talk about this and then I will go forward with the message if I understand it.' So, it's just a really different way of engaging, isn't it, rather than just saying, 'Right, we'll give you a leaflet', or 'Come down and hope that you've understood everything that you've been told and go away again.' It's got to be done over time, and it's got to be done in a very careful and collaborative way, which actually would mean someone like me, I think, stepping out of the way and letting others come into that space and say, 'This is how we should do it.'

One of the big learning points, I think, from the COVID experience was that the people who were even more marginalised than they were before were the ones who needed more of a community-led response. It's more of an oral history, it's more of, 'We need to talk about this. We don't want a leaflet; we don't understand a leaflet. That's not anything that we're interested in. Actually, we want to access services by having a conversation about it.' And I think that, for me, when people weren't able to do that, was marginalising groups of people who used that form of expression, that form of communication, that form of engagement. We've got to do that better.

And I think one of the things that's really struck me in some of the work that we've been doing, particularly around the Gypsy, Roma, Traveller community, is that if there is a lack of literacy in generations of a family, if there is a mistrust of public services, sending them a letter saying, 'You're entitled to this, and you need to come to this appointment' is not going to get through to people who need help. And it was really, really striking, I thought, that the moment there was a conversation with somebody from the community who said, 'No, no, this is okay, you are entitled to this, you can have this. People will come and help you', that changed everything. So, I think we just need to think a little differently about building that trust, working with people, rather than seeming like we're coming in as the experts and telling them what to do. But that's a very personal view, I should add.

On the effectiveness of current strategies that aim to prevent violence before it occurs—that is, preventative measures—the challenges are in delivering these preventative measures. Is there a way these strategies could be enhanced?

I didn't catch that, Naomi. Did you?

Yes, a bit, Jo, you'll probably gather from my answer. I think one of the issues is always the difficulty of evidencing the impact of preventative work. But it doesn't mean that we can't start there. So, just picking up on what Jo was saying earlier about working with communities and, again, having somebody that people trust, so it's not people in suits who turn up to do this, one of the examples was around the arrival of Afghan refugees within some of the Urdd centres, for example. So, one of the things that became clear quite early on was that the women and girls wanted an opportunity to talk amongst themselves. So, yes, the arrival was very good and it was much supported, but that opportunity for women and girls to have their own little group to talk about some of their experiences, to have people in to talk to them, again gives that opportunity to raise those issues as a preventative measure in terms of being able to highlight some of the risks that can appear but also the standards that we expect and the support services that would be available at that time.

I also heard BAWSO talking about some of the pilot work that they're undertaking, funded by the Home Office, but a lot of that seemed to be more reactive, rather than proactive. And, again, it's around which organisations would take this sort of responsibility forward in being able to address some of those steps. So, I certainly know, in some of the asylum dispersal areas that we would have, some of those sessions are held with women through the third sector groups. They come together and they talk not just because of that; it can appear as different conversations. But I think the prevention and early intervention does require us to develop those positive relationships with communities, to rely on people those communities trust to be able to have those conversations, as Jo was saying. But also, then, if we know that people—. There are some risk factors that we can identify, and so if we've identified those risk factors, what steps are we taking to ensure that we can actually provide appropriate support or guidance along the way. So, I think there is more to be done around some of that prevention and early intervention, but particularly starting through the schools as well and using all avenues that we have to communicate these important messages.

Thank you. I think we need to move on, because I know Sioned still has some questions she wants to ask. Sioned Williams.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Ie, eisiau edrych ymlaen ydw i, mewn gwirionedd, i'r dyfodol. Rydyn ni wedi trafod tipyn ynglŷn â'r hyn sydd heb weithio yn y gorffennol, ac yn y blaen, a rhai o'r camau sydd wedi digwydd yn ddiweddar, ac eisiau gofyn am eich barn chi yn benodol. Fe wnaethoch chi gyfeirio ato fe, Naomi, dwi'n meddwl, at y strategaeth, y refresh newydd—y strategaeth VAWDASV newydd. Beth yw'r bylchau? Beth yw'ch barn chi arni hi? Jo, dwi'n meddwl wnaethoch chi sôn tipyn bach am y ffaith roeddech chi'n teimlo efallai bod edrych trwy'r lens yna o safbwynt profiadau menywod mudol ar goll. Ac efallai hefyd y gallwch chi sôn tipyn bach am y ffaith y gwnaethoch chi gyffwrdd arno o ran y diffyg yna o ran yr ymateb acíwt sydd yna ar gyfer profiadau trawmatig. Felly, unrhyw beth rydych chi'n teimlo sydd efallai ar goll neu heb ei gyfro yn ddigonol yn y strategaeth newydd.

Thank you, I'll go first. Thank you, Sioned. Yes, I think I expressed our dismay—if that's not too strong a word—despite extensive feedback, I felt, not just from Public Health Wales but from others who had responded to the consultation, not expecting there to be mention of migrant women in every line, but at least an acknowledgement that there is a specific lens that needs to be applied here. So, we are trying, obviously, to stop all forms of violence against women, against anyone. This isn't about saying, 'This group here is more deserving', or, 'This group here needs to have more attention', but it's about equality and access to services.

And here is a group of women who have had an experience that is different. They may have the same experience in terms of being in a domestic abuse situation—I understand that—they may have the same sorts of experiences, perhaps, of being at risk of sexual violence in the community, et cetera, but they have come here, in many cases, having experienced different cultural acceptance of violence, perhaps, in the country that they've left. Even if we're not talking about refugees, people who have migrated here may have come from a different experience of acceptance of domestic abuse.

And then, we know that there are extensive experiences through trafficking, through living in refugee camps, through lots of other things that form part of that migration journey, which may be as quick as a couple of weeks, or it may be years. So, here is a group of women who have had experiences that are different, regardless of whether you want to look at this in a holistic way, so we must recognise that. And I think we were disappointed that that wasn't clearer in the VAWDASV strategy, because, as I said, I am not clear where that sits. I am not clear where we are picking this up in terms of Welsh Government policy and process.

The work that's going on at the moment to look at, particularly, the more acute impacts, I would say, or the outcomes of having experienced these forms of violence, some of which might be impact on mental health, I think there is some really, really good work under way at the moment to look at how we ensure that we are inclusive in our approaches to put together packages or training around complex post-traumatic stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. That's great. What's interesting, though, and what I'm hearing is that whilst that's a real need and a gap, there is a bigger need for people to just be able to understand what they do if someone presents in front of them who've had this experience. Where do they signpost them to for support?

So, it's less in the acute space, because I think people get there over time if they don't have access to the sorts of services they might need to prevent that from happening. And what we were hearing from practitioners and those working with, particularly, refugees and asylum seekers, was that those waiting lists are still very, very long. What do we do here and now to help people cope with the experiences that they are trying to deal with? So, how can we, as professionals or as members of the public or members of the community, access the kinds of tools or training, or anything that might support that?

And just to pick up on that quickly, because I know we're short of time, just building on that, I think what would be helpful—because, as Jo said, this group of people are not specifically mentioned—there used to be a strategy in Welsh Government around FGM, but that's way out of date now. So, is there an opportunity to be able to develop, I know not strategies, per se, but, plans or specific actions that will address some of these issues, so you're addressing that gap, if you like? Because I think it does need more investment in this area, as I think we said earlier, but it's about sustainable investment. What you might need is an injection of some of that work so that we can bring everything up to speed. So, I think it does need a bit of a planned approach. As Jo said, there are pockets of good work, but how do we bring this together so that it's seen as a planned approach to addressing this in a holistic way? It would look at guidance, it would have materials available, you'd have training. But, as Jo said, it's also being able to know where to refer people to. So, we do need some of those other specialist services delivered by probably our third sector partners across Wales in different ways, to be able to have that confidence, and then ensuring that the support mechanisms we have in place—so, for example, refuges—are culturally appropriate, so that when people arrive there, they are welcome. Because obviously refuges and other places just reflect society, so if people experience racism within that, that's going to actually re-traumatise and reinforce some of those negative perceptions. So, again, making sure that our existing services are respectful, based on equality and respect for people. As I said—I think I said this earlier—we need to mainstream what we're doing to make sure that standard services are right, but in the meantime, while bringing people up to speed, we might need to look at how we develop some of those specialist services, while we ensure that those skills and that knowledge are there more generally across public services as well.

Diolch. Rydyn ni yn brin o amser, felly roeddwn i eisiau gofyn i chi yn fwy penodol am yr enghreifftiau yna o'r arfer gorau y tu hwnt i Gymru o ran cynorthwyo menywod mudol y gallai Llywodraeth Cymru efallai ddysgu ohonyn nhw. Does dim amser gyda ni y prynhawn yma efallai i drafod hynny, felly, os gallaf i ofyn i chi i gysylltu â'r pwyllgor gydag unrhyw enghreifftiau y byddech chi'n hoffi eu huwcholeuo o ran hynny.

A dwi jest eisiau gofyn yn sydyn iawn i Jo, rydych chi wedi sôn am hyn, felly jest os oes gyda chi rywbeth i'w ychwanegu o ran y syniad yma o ddefnyddio dull iechyd cyhoeddus o ran mynd i'r afael â thrais domestig, o ran rhoi sylw i'r ffactorau risg sylfaenol yma sy'n cynyddu'r tebygolrwydd y bydd unigolyn yn dod yn oroeswr neu'n gyflawnwr. Dydyn ni ddim wedi siarad lot am hynny y prynhawn yma. Felly, oes gyda chi rywbeth i'w ychwanegu at yr hyn rydych chi wedi sôn amdano fe'n barod?

I'd be very happy to send in some more written representations, Sioned, if that would be helpful. From a really quick perspective here, just to add that any public health approach starts with that premise of, 'We need to understand what the data and what the evidence tells us.' We've had three reports now in the last 10 years that tell us there are specific experiences of this group of women and girls in Wales, which is actually really groundbreaking. I shouldn't say this in a negative sense. We are way ahead of most other places in terms of having done these pieces of work. But, we have some evidence here. So, a public health approach says, 'You have evidence, and then you need to move forward into taking some action in terms of thinking about what are those underlying causes, what are the root causes.' I think, in the same way as we talk about the root cause of this being oppression and obviously thinking about power dynamics and coercive control and everything else, we do need to take that specific lens to this group, because I think when we do that we'll see real evidence of the challenge that we need to meet as we move forward in the implementation. Because if we don't, then we won't meet the needs of this group.

If I give you a really specific example just very quickly. There was a report done in 2015 by the World Health Organization that asked Afghan women about their experiences of violence in the home—I'll send it to you—and over 80 per cent of them thought it was acceptable for their husband to have hit them. I think, if we're dealing with something where it's culturally embedded and ingrained, and people are coming to the UK where they have this sudden awakening, if you like, that, actually, this might not be the way things have to be, then that public health approach really needs to capture that and look at those areas that we need to focus on. But, I can send further detail.

Can I just say—? This is a final point, but I think that the point that you made there, Sioned, around perpetrators as well—. So, a lot of the points that we would have made today around seeing it through different lenses, the issues there, addressing those cultural 'norms', per se, do need to be addressed because any work that we're doing around perpetrators will have similar lessons for dealing with perpetrators from migrant communities as well. For that long-term need to get to a place of safety for women, we do need to tackle not only supporting victims, but making sure that perpetrators are aware of their behaviour. So, I would just endorse that final point.

Diolch.

Thank you very much indeed, both of you. That was a really fascinating session with such a lot of expertise from both of you, so I'd like to thank you both. We will send you a transcript of your evidence and please do check it carefully to make sure that we've captured your evidence accurately. Also, thank you for any additional information that you may have time to submit. Thank you very much indeed.

The committee will now take a short break before the next session, which is due to start—. I think, if we could try and start the next session at 4.05 p.m., that would just give us time to get the new witnesses in. Thank you very much indeed.

Prynhawn da. Welcome back to our third scrutiny session of our inquiry into violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence and how it relates to migrant women. So, I'm very pleased in this third session to welcome Kirsty Thomson from JustRight Scotland to help us understand what are the boundaries that we can push in order to meet the needs of this vulnerable group of women. So, very much welcome to you and thank you very much for giving up your time. And Jane Dodds is going to open the discussion.

Hi there, Kirsty. Thank you very much for joining us. Diolch yn fawr iawn. I wanted to specifically ask you two really interesting things—I hope—in terms of the Scottish experience from the March 2021 report, 'Ending Destitution Together: A Strategy to Improve Support for People with No Recourse to Public Funds Living in Scotland', and it's a strategy over three years, until 2024. We've heard a lot about the issues affecting migrant women and those who have no recourse to public funds. So, I wanted to really just ask you what the good things were from it. But two things that occurred to me in reading a little synopsis of it was around access to refuges, and something I'm sure my colleague Sarah Murphy will pick up later, which is I understand that you have an approach, which is that it is never the right move to share data. And there may be other points that you want to highlight for us in a more general way, but I was specifically interested in those two issues. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Thank you very much for allowing me to attend to give the Scottish perspective. And, yes, Jane, I will try and answer your questions. Firstly, in terms of 'Ending Destitution Together', I think what's good about it is that it exists in and of itself. As far as I'm aware, it's one of the first strategies of its kind that sets out what it itself says is quite an ambitious plan and strategy. In and of itself, it didn't just come out of nothing—it came out of a number of different inquiries, pieces of research, from third sector, from academia, a Scottish Parliament inquiry, similar to what you're doing. So, it built on a lot of that work in order to pull this strategy together. And the fact of having it, it sets out a commitment; it doesn't say it has all the answers, but it quite clearly states that we're going to work together in order to try and work out what some of those are, in what is a very complex area, particularly in terms of that nexus between devolved and reserved. What I think it does, in terms of that framework—and there has been a lot of learning as well, in terms of COVID—it builds confidence in terms of how far a Government can go, what are those parameters, and it creates space to look at funding, to look at frameworks, and to push those parameters further than they've been pushed before. So, that's what I would say about the strategy in and of itself. It is incredibly useful, and, as I say, we are involved in many different strands of that work. So, practically, I can see how useful it has been and also how it is moving us forward in Scotland. We've got somewhere to go, but we're on that journey, with a route-map.

In terms of your question about access to refuges, can I just ask you to be more specific on that? Is that in terms of not having access in terms of public funds?

Yes. So, specifically, you have this strategy, which is about support to people who have no recourse to public funds. In the strategy, I couldn't see anything that referred to access to refuge places for women. There are lots of other really interesting points, but could you just talk a little bit about that? Because, obviously, we've got the rest of it, but really interesting to hear about that issue.

So, historically, access to—. Well, from my understanding, historically, access to a refuge space in Scotland has been funded via public funds, basically, hence why there's a barrier there when we look at no recourse to public funds. However, in part as a result of this strategy, what civil society, including ourselves and others, have committed to do is to look at where we can bring in other funding for specialist support, including that provided in a refuge. And there are some clear examples of that, in terms of where I think the Government and others have increased in confidence, particularly in the last year or so, in providing funding to third sector partners through crisis funds or destitution funds, whatever we wish to call them, that allows that route, that allows that pathway. Again, we're still on that journey. We've taken steps to see how we can work within the context of that reserved position, and we're growing confidence and I think I've provided a briefing and a recent example of that, where local authority grant funding has been given to Women's Aid and Red Cross in order to provide access in that area.

Thank you so much. Chair, I'll pass on, thank you very much. Diolch.

Very good. Sarah Murphy, would you like to ask your questions?

Thank you very much, and thank you so much for being here today. The question that I wanted to ask you about is about data sharing. It's something that we touched on in previous sessions today. But, having a look through the JustRight Scotland blog, I could see that there was that incident last year, in Glasgow, where there was a dawn raid and the community came out and stopped two migrant men from being deported, and, at the time, you said that you're calling for an end to any co-operation on data sharing between Police Scotland and the UK Government's Home Office unless it is a legitimate matter of public safety. And just to tie this all together, in our evidence that we've heard, there are women who—. Sometimes the perpetrator actually threatens them by saying, 'If you go to the police about the domestic violence and abuse, then you'll get deported, because they're going to tell UK Visas and Immigration, and you're not meant to be here.' So, it's used as a part of that coercion and that abuse. Also, then, we've heard from the agencies, the organisations like BAWSO and other third sector organisations, that they obviously suggest to women who have come forward to them and given these heartbreaking stories for them to go to the police about it, and then, whether it's true or not, anecdotally, there are these stories then about the women being contacted by UK Visas and Immigration. So, all of this is creating barriers. So, I just wanted to ask: what has been the outcome from that? Have you had further discussions with the Scottish Government about this? Is there anything that can be done? Is there anything that you think we can also do here in Wales to address this?

Yes, this has been a longstanding issue in terms of data protection, information sharing and firewalls, and we have done quite a bit of work on this in trying to establish what the various positions are and where there are agreements or memorandums of understanding, and also trying to work to raise awareness, but also trying to set out the legal position as we understand it, because there are conflicts in terms of the legislation that exists in Scotland, and I think in Wales. It comes from a UK perspective in terms of what's in immigration law, and our position is that there is a conflict in terms of GDPR and human rights legislation. It is an incredibly complex area. We have worked with a number of agencies around about this. You've repeated back our position on this. It's clearly a good position, but, in terms of working towards adopting that, there are a number of steps along the way to that.

What we have been trying to do is to seek clarity and transparency and consistency. They are needed in this area and we have still got some way to go on that in Scotland. We were involved in the establishment of guidance with local authorities and Government around about migration and rights and entitlements, and, as far as we're aware, it's the only document that starts to actually try and tackle this problem in terms of setting out that it exists and what is the legal background, but, more than that, what is the framework, what's the framework that authorities and others can operate within. We also think there are inconsistencies in terms of practice in Scotland, and we think there needs to be a consistent nationwide approach to this, backed up in guidance.

So, it is complex. It requires to be tackled. I think it's something that we'd require to move towards in partnership with police, with public authorities, with Government. Our role in that is trying to share our understanding in terms of the legal position, in terms of what is good practice, to try and bring the survivor experience to that, to try and highlight good practice in terms of, for instance, I think I highlighted the NHS's good practice in terms of its clarity in terms of a statement in this area, and try and work towards that clear framework from a national perspective. I think that's going to take time, but consistently it is an issue that comes up, not just from survivors but from agencies that work in this field, including statutory, including third sector. When everyone is confused, when everyone finds it complex, and when it is inconsistent, then—you know, we can't have that.

Thank you so much, Kirsty. I really appreciate that. That's all I have, Chair. Thank you very much.

Very good, thank you. Altaf Hussain.

Thank you very much, Chair. Thanks, Kirsty. It is regarding the access to specialist support. What steps has the Scottish Government taken to ensure migrant women and girls can access specialist support for accommodation, both physical and mental health, and legal support?

I think the Scottish Government is a model of good practice in this area. I have been working on the front line for about 14 or 15 years now, and for most of that time I, or the projects I have been working in, have received some kind of funding from the Scottish Government, under its broader violence against women and girls strategies but with a specific—. We've been funded to specifically work in the area of migrant women. I think the Scottish Government has made clear political commitments in this area, backed up by quite substantial funding, and what that does is it not only just creates those support services, but over the years it's created again that partnership, that multi-agency working. If I'm funded to work in this area, then I can attend various working groups, research, inquiries, as we try and work through some of these difficult issues that you've already raised this afternoon.

The funding packages are very good in terms of the funding they provide to specialist support in terms of women's organisations. The Scottish Government also funds specific health interventions, and it funds us, so I am part of legal projects that are funded to provide specific legal advice to migrant women across Scotland, either through dedicated projects, or also more broadly through the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre, for instance.

Migrant women often access our projects in different ways, but there's often some Government funding attached to this. With COVID-19, I think the Scottish Government worked with ourselves and others to make a clear statement and set out a clear framework in terms of what migrants—and particularly migrant women fleeing abuse—must have access to in terms of a public health response, accommodation and support. In the last week, that's been updated as we're moving out of the pandemic to be quite clear in terms of the requirements for support.

I also think, as I've said, Scottish Government is becoming more confident in terms of funding; not only the kind of advice or support services, but they've also funded third-sector partners to provide accommodation—Safe in Scotland is a good example of that—recognising alongside local authorities that, actually, funded third-sector partners are really useful allies in terms of working through some of these parameters and being able to deliver some of the crisis support, but also accommodation, and recognising that you need those pathways to exit a situation of destitution or situation of violence.

Access to a crisis grant or a crisis fund or a refuge is great, but you need that specialist support in terms of advocacy, but also legal support, to make sure that there is a safer medium to longer-term outcome in that. And legal advice has been key through all of this; it's very difficult to provide assistance to someone with an uncertain migration status who is at risk of violence and there not being legal advice in there somehow, in terms of working out the next step.

Thank you very much. What steps has the Scottish Government taken to ensure those who have no recourse to public funding can access support like the hardship fund, and what have been the key challenges and barriers to access this fund?

As I say, I think we've made quite significant progress in the last few years in the area of no recourse to public funds in terms of trying to work through these barriers and trying to understand the parameters in which we have the power to act, and also must act, regardless of the NRPF condition. I think I've highlighted some really good examples; the COVID-19 guidance and framework that was produced by the Government in partnership with a variety of people was so clear in that. But it wasn't just a clear statement; it actually set out, 'and this is the framework, this is how to make sure this happens'.

Another good example was the isolation funding. There was isolation funding available, for instance, from the UK during COVID, but that did come out of a fund that would be classed a public fund in terms of immigration legislation, but the Scottish Government created a pathway and made it clear that if someone was trying to access that that had no recourse to public funds—. They created another pathway, so that those individuals could get that fund in a way that wouldn't be classed as accessing public funds.

They've also, as I say, funded accommodation. Safe in Scotland provides accommodation and support for those who have no recourse to public funds. That's quite a shift; it's a real confidence in terms of the Government working with others to be clear on where it can act and how best it can act, and I think we're on that journey there, and even moving forward, bringing those referral pathways in place. It also has a crisis fund, which came out of the inquiry that the Scottish Parliament did, which I spoke to. That's administered by British Red Cross, and that's delivered, again, in partnership with a range of people. There are other initiatives like that that are ongoing. They all come out of funded initiatives, but are all trying to put in place this framework and this pathway.

We recognise that we need to do further work in terms of referral pathways, particularly in terms of housing—that came up in Jane's point at the start—but that's about to start. I think they have shown leadership in terms of moving forward and trying to come up with access to support and pathways. There's more to be done, but I think they should be commended in terms of what they've done so far.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I just wanted to explore the role of public bodies and how well they comply with the law, regardless of whether or not somebody has no recourse to public funds. In Wales, we have the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. Particularly in relation to children, but also to vulnerable adults, there's an obligation to act. What information can you share with us about the law in Scotland, and how public bodies approach those obligations against the gap in funding?

Again, we've very much been on a journey with what I suspect is very similar legislation in Scotland around a power to provide support for children, vulnerable families, vulnerable adults, and where there's a duty to do so under human rights legislation, and then what pot of funding that comes out of in terms of the local authorities. I think we're on the same journey, if that makes sense. The same issues have come up for many years now in this area, and they were clearly noted in terms of the 2017 inquiry from the Scottish Parliament in this area. In terms of compliance, it is such a complex area. You know that to ensure consistency in this area is very difficult. We had certainly found quite a number of years ago that there was a lack of awareness and knowledge in this area in terms of what can be used, what powers can be used, when they should be used, and, again, where that funding comes from.

A big bit of work that we did in this area with COSLA, our organisation of local authorities, and the Scottish Government in 2019 was we created—and it was my colleague that did this—a guide. So, we really tried to set out, in as clear a way as possible, what the rights and entitlements are for migrants in terms of accessing local authority support, and what local authorities and social work should consider in terms of providing that. That was followed up by a national training programme, and we're just about to revisit and update that now. That has been a really good first step, but there's more to be done in terms of creating local frameworks for public authorities and trying to tease it out more in terms of what happens when a women approaches homelessness assistance. We've been doing some work on that in Glasgow through the Glasgow Violence Against Women Partnership. When you try and work out a woman's journey through that process, it is complex, and I still fear that the first question that is asked is, 'What's the person's immigration status?', rather than, 'Do you know what are the risks, background and vulnerabilities here that may trigger our duties in this area?' and then may link in to that funding pot.

Again, there's work going on on this in Scotland. We, ourselves, are about to commission a legal opinion in this area just to kind of further check our understanding in terms of parameters in terms of local authorities' obligations, but also because we're very aware that there's a funding question to this and that that is really important in terms of implementation. We really want this opinion to look at some of that in terms of coming to their answers. We did this last year in terms of the Nationality and Borders Bill, which is now an Act, because we really felt that we needed to contribute some information and awareness about how something that's reserved has a real impact on devolved areas. We want to do something similar with no recourse to public funds, because it keeps coming up. We think we need a little bit more of an input to help us with the work that's ongoing. It keeps coming up because it is increasingly becoming more of an issue in terms of numbers in areas of Scotland that would never have seen this before. So, that's where we are—I suspect some of the same issues.

A particular aspect on this that I'm very interested in is that, as all money is fungible, at one level, dealing with violence in a domestic context—you know, gender-based violence—is a really complicated subject regardless of people's migrant status. I just wondered how you can approach funding for these expert bodies; if you have private, voluntary or community funds involved, does it then eliminate the need to be making distinctions between individuals whose immigration status doesn't allow them access to public funds, as opposed to somebody whose does?

I think it comes back to the point I made earlier: definitely, the third sector and funding in that way is incredibly useful and we are useful allies in terms of a response. However, it can't be the only response. In terms of trying to work out these pathways and these working groups, funding is key, and funding is a key barrier as well in terms of people being able to provide support at any level. I think that it has been recognised at Government and local authority level that we need to find a route in for the Government and local authorities to provide funding to others in order to provide services; it can't just come from private, charitable or philanthropic trusts. It needs to be there, it's really complementary, but given the demand that we're seeing in this area and that it is going to increase, it's not enough just to rely on that. I'm not saying that it's easy to work out the funding in a way that is compliant. But we have committed to doing that and to trying to work through some of this, and as I say, I think the Government and local authorities are growing in confidence in that. But, yes, we're on a journey and still on that journey.

So, it's still to be fully tested. Okay. Thank you. I'll pass on to Sioned Williams who wants to explore areas of good practice.

Diolch, Gadeirydd, a diolch, Kirsty. Rŷch chi wedi sôn am nifer o achosion o arfer gorau yn barod, ond rôn i jest eisiau gofyn ichi archwilio, efallai, yr agweddau ar bolisi a chymorth y gallai—yn eich cenedl chi—Llywodraeth Cymru ddysgu ohonyn nhw. Rhywbeth wnaethom ni glywed yn un o'n sesiynau tystiolaeth cynharach oedd sut mae Llywodraeth yr Alban yn gweithio'n strategol, mewn partneriaeth strategol, â Chyngor Ffoaduriaid yr Alban, er enghraifft. Felly, byddwn i'n hoffi clywed eich barn chi ar hynny. Rŷch chi wedi sôn tipyn bach am sut mae'r Llywodraeth yn delio â no recourse to public funds, sydd ddim yn rhywbeth sy'n digwydd yng Nghymru, felly unrhyw agweddau ar hynny, unrhyw agweddau ar arfer gorau rŷch chi'n meddwl y gallem ni ddysgu ohonyn nhw.

Yes, thank you very much for your question. I think, in terms of good practice and in terms of Government and local funding, there is something in here about multi-agency and that working across sectors, bringing different expertise, be that legal, be that Refugee Council, Red Cross, Women's Aid, and bringing all of that around the same table and also in terms of that response. And I can give you two examples: one is that I chair a working group, in my guise as the third sector, but it's for a local authority violence against women partnership. It's called the Women, Asylum, Immigrants and Refugee group; it has a focus on migrant women. That was resurrected last year, after a hiatus of a couple of years, and in the last year—and it brings together public authorities and third sector within a local area—we have committed to increasing data and to improving our monitoring and evaluation in terms of issues affecting migrant women, including NRPF, because there's no data, no consistent data, in terms of which to monitor where we are and where we're going. We have just come out with a statement on why a gendered response is needed in response to the crisis in Ukraine. It has provided funding to Women's Aid and British Red Cross in order to provide a crisis fund to women fleeing violence who may not have access to other services, and has wrapped around that access to legal advice. That is just an example of strategic partnership at a local level coming together and, in a very short period of time, inputting in a range of places.

Another good example—and I will touch on the Scottish Refugee Council—is some funding that's been obtained. This is not through Scottish Government. It's called Fair Way Scotland, and that is a partnership of charities, including ourselves at JustRight Scotland and the Scottish Refugee Council, working with academics and funders to develop a human rights-based approach to ending destitution. That will provide accommodation and access to legal advice, advice on finance—a whole host of services—and that will also work with local authorities in Scotland to improve their response.

So, it's always, for me, been the partnership. And that partnership across Government, local authority, police, doesn't always agree, nor would I expect us to agree, but we come together and we try and understand what the barriers are, where the problems are, and we try and proactively come up with solutions. For me, these are some—. I think I've mentioned quite a few examples. They would not come if there wasn't such a clear political commitment and well-funded organisations that can come together in this space. I'm a lawyer. We provide—. I think we have three sets of funding that ensures that we can support nearly all of these initiatives that involve migrant women. Yes. So, that commitment, that funding and that partnership.

Diolch yn fawr. Diolch, Gadeirydd.

Very good. It's—. I suppose one of the points that arises out of all this is what is likely to be the response of the UK Government, who have passed the Nationality and Borders Act regardless of the fact that certain sections of it, at least, were not given legislative consent by either the Welsh Parliament or the Scottish Parliament. So, how much of important and busy organisations in Scotland's time is going to be tied up in legal arguments about what is devolved and what is not devolved?

Yes, really good question. For us, when this first arose, we decided to get a legal opinion and do some work in this area for a number of reasons, and one was—and, again, this came out of the Glasgow WAIR group that I mentioned that I chair—that there just wasn't an understanding across Scotland in terms of service providers, social work, police, health, in terms of the impact of this legislation. So, a big bit of what we did was raise awareness, and we did that in private sessions with public authorities and ourselves, and I've heard time and time again how useful that was. There just was not that awareness of what was coming.

The second part of why we did this was to create understanding. Consistently, we were asked as lawyers, 'Well, surely the UK Government cannot do this, and you can come in and go to court over this', et cetera, which, of course, we can't. So, a little bit of this was raising awareness of how far we can go in terms of devolution, and that—. Again, we've heard back how helpful that was in terms of policy and communication strands that were going on around about that time in terms of what could be done in Scotland.

But, behind the scenes, Jenny, really, what was happening—. That was going on, in terms of work looking at the consent motions et cetera, but really what we were doing was trying to build awareness and trying to get authorities and partners to look at now, what we have now in terms of our strategies, in terms of our projects and frameworks, and can we go back and review those to make sure they're as strong as they can be—do they need to be tweaked, do they need to be amended in order to mitigate the impact of what's coming? Really, a lot of work went into that, and having their opinion and raising awareness and bringing people together was a really good opportunity to do the policy and communications work around about withholding consent et cetera. But it was really an opportunity, to be honest, to bring lots of people around and to start thinking, and proactively thinking through what services are needed, what can we do. Because the impact of this legislation will be to increase those with no access to public funds requiring support in areas of Scotland that maybe haven't come across that before. And we're still doing that work and we'll still continue to do that work. I think if we hadn't, we would have been reacting at a Scottish multi-agency level, rather than being proactive.

It was also a really good opportunity to understand the parameters that local authorities have and operate within. They were very clear about, 'It's our staff that are going to have to deal with these presentations,' and it was trying to build an understanding of their parameters as well and to try and come together, collectively, not blaming, nothing like that, just, 'Okay, what tools do we have that we can think through this and use to mitigate these impacts?'

Thank you, that was really interesting to hear. Do any other Members want to ask any further questions?

Well, thank you very much indeed for your time. We'll send you a transcript of your evidence, and obviously you should correct it if we've misinterpreted what you've said. Otherwise, we thank you very much indeed for the insight into how Scotland is handling this really complex subject.

Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you.

So, before we move into private session, I wondered if we could agree the three papers, the three sets of papers, that are on the agenda to be noted, unless anybody wishes to raise any matters arising from those papers before we do so. I can't see anybody objecting, so if we can note those three papers.

And can I get your agreement to exclude the public from the remainder of today's meeting and also the short meeting we are going to be holding on 9 June, this coming Thursday? Thank you very much. If we could now move into private session.