Seòmar agus comataidhean

Craig Smith has already alluded to this issue, so I am going to put my question to others. Will making representatives liable for overpayments and the misuse of money in that way affect people’s willingness to become a representative? Craig Smith has already highlighted that concern.

I will get the women to come in and see whether we get a different view. What does Claire Andrews think about that? Do you think that that will prevent people from putting themselves forward to represent?

Thank you, Mr Shaw. By my reckoning, that is about seven priorities, but thank you very much.

My second question is on the proposed care leaver’s payment, which is a bit of a passion of mine. I am slightly concerned that we cannot see a lot of the detail behind it yet. We are still not 100 per cent sure what the definition of a care leaver is, and we are still not 100 per cent sure what the process will be—whether it is £2,000 up front or whether it will be a split payment. There is a whole raft of information behind the question that we might not have, but I am going to ask the question anyway, because it is about social security. CPAG suggests that the care leaver’s payment should be delivered by Social Security Scotland unless there is a good reason to use a different agency. Why is that, and why would delivery by Social Security Scotland be your first choice, if it is your first choice?

I welcome everyone, whether you are online or in the room. My questions are on the new forms of benefits. I will start with the online witnesses. First, I have a question for Ms Connock, although I will also address it to witnesses in the room. The bill would give the Scottish Government more flexibility over rules for the Scottish child payment. I am happy that you are here, Ms Connock, because you represent a rural environment, which we do not often have represented in the room. From your perspective, what changes should be prioritised?

Thank you. That is very helpful. I ask Mr Shaw the same question.

Thank you. That is informative.

Convener, I whole-heartedly accept the answers and the evidence that we have heard. However, equally, I think that we should know a little bit more about what we are trying to do, considering that the consultation is now over. Is it possible for the committee to write to the cabinet secretary to get a little background information that, although it might not be pertinent to this evidence session, would be nice for the committee to know?

Can I take from that that having such a short period of time in which to make such radical changes is the main issue? Is it because it is too reactionary?

That was a good answer. Thank you. I am sorry that that was short.

I understand that. I am sorry that I am keeping answers tight, but I am aware of the time, and we have a lot of questions. I am aware of the main pressure points, and you gave me a good example of where two or three of them are.

What differences do you see in how you support people who are granted refugee status compared with those who are in Scotland under a UK resettlement scheme? Are there also differences between those who are here on different resettlement schemes? Phil Arnold, I will put that one to you. I am sorry that I am only asking one of you, but we are short of time.

Good morning, gentlemen, and thank you for your evidence. You have certainly given an awful lot of evidence so far, and I understand entirely your concerns about the Home Office.

My questions are about the impact on third sector organisations. Unfortunately, our time is now very short so, although a lot of the information that you have already given about the Home Office will apply here, not repeating some of that would help us to get through this section, if you do not mind.

UK asylum policy appears to consistently change and evolve. I imagine that you want some form of evolution, because different conflicts mean different issues. How does that affect the support that organisations such as yours can provide to refugees?