���˿���

My first question, which is perhaps for Jan Savage in the first instance, is focused on the resourcing of the commission. The commission has not used its power to conduct an inquiry. As we know, it has had to pause litigation work due to capacity issues. Does the commission have sufficient financial and staffing resources to meet its current duties and obligations in Scotland?

We know that there will be future challenges for the commission, and that new duties and powers might arise from the human rights bill. Will you comment on what those challenges might be and the potential need for further resourcing to cover them?

Thank you. Those helpful comments answer some of my supplementary questions.

What is interesting is the discussion and debate around powers for a purpose—new powers for the commission with that sense of purpose. I noted in the “At a crossroads” report the consideration of the wider landscape and the increase in the number of called-for commissioners on a variety of issues that would impact the human rights of individuals. In the Parliament, and perhaps more widely, we are having something of a debate around the need for commissioners, the growth in their numbers and the challenges therein. Do you want to expand more on your views about the increase in the call for commissioners in different areas and perhaps how those calls interact with the work of the SHRC? We have heard a bit about that already. What role does the SHRC feel that it could play instead of some of those other options being taken forward? I do not refer to any commissioner proposal in isolation but more broadly to the principle.

I am interested in understanding more about the costings for new policies that will come in this year. However, my first question is about the impact that delays to new benefits have on forecasting. For example, the delay of carer support payment from spring to autumn has been widely discussed and we have spoken about it in the committee. To what extent does that have an impact on the forecast?

I have a point about the uptake of ADP and the increase in the number of people receiving the benefit. You have said that analysis is under way. Do you intend to share that more widely to inform this committee’s work?

That is helpful. There is a degree of uncertainty around the new benefits that are coming on stream this year, particularly the pension-age disability payment, which will replace the attendance allowance. You have said that costings remain highly uncertain in that space. To what extent has your experience of forecasting other disability payments informed your costings and assessment of the pension-age disability payment?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. We have probably covered some of this, but are there other situations in which explicit consent would not be given but the information would be shared? I am thinking about some of the existing adult or child protection legislation and about interventions that may have to be made with other relevant authorities even though someone has not explicitly given their consent, in order to protect the public.

Let us turn to the stakeholder engagement that you have undertaken in preparing the bill. We have heard clear evidence on the importance of stakeholders’ lived experience and about its range, breadth and depth. Which areas might contribute to the expert advice that would go into the creation of the benefit?

I want to return to the comparison between a non-statutory working group and your proposal. Last week, the Government said that we will have a non-statutory working group. You touched on some of this in your exchange with Mr Doris, but it would be useful for us to hear you compare that working group with your proposed council. Why is having that on a statutory footing so important in ensuring that recommendations are acted on and implemented?

Your contention is that the Government would be able to abolish a working group on a whim, which would mean that we would lose the richness and diversity of representation. We heard the trade unions speak about the importance of having that worker representation. I also note Marie McNair’s point about gender balance being locked in under the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.

Essentially, you are saying that, without a statutory underpinning, the body would be much looser. Rather than the expertise that sits on it being chosen by the Government, you believe that it is important to lay out the requirements in statute so that there is a clear path to people being represented on it.

Good morning, Mr Griffin. I am keen to understand the opportunity for reform, which we have already mentioned. Last week, the Scottish Government, through the cabinet secretary, argued that the bill would not deliver a reformed benefit, and we have already heard discussion to that effect today. Will you explain how setting up SEIAC would address the desire for reform that was expressed by the stakeholders from whom we heard?