Chamber and committees

One of those differences is highlighted on page 33 of the report. This question follows on from the previous question, but I note that the report states that some commissions and commissioners are looking very much at “individual cases”, while some are looking much more at “systemic issues”. Is that because of the way in which they have been set up and what they have been told to do?

Do they just adapt to the powers that they have and get on with it, or did you pick up a level of frustration, either from the commissioners or from outside bodies, that some of them wanted to do other things but could not?

Okay. One suggestion is that the Scottish Human Rights Commission should just do everything and have departments, individuals, spokespersons or whatever to look at different aspects. You picked up, in particular, that having a lead on the elimination of discrimination against women was suggested to commissioners as a possibility. Can you tell us what the reaction to that suggestion was? Was it seen as likely to be difficult to do?

I think that that was a reasonable answer to the previous question.

I think that I have got my head round that.

Do you have any other comments or suggestions about the appeals process?

I am glad that we got that sorted out.

I would like to ask the two witnesses about short-term assistance. My understanding is that short-term assistance kicks in if somebody already has an award and that award could either be removed or reduced. Generally, is that working, and how?

Right. I think that I understand. Would that mean that there would be no change in somebody’s finances but, instead of saying that for a certain period they received STA, they could say that they had the qualifying benefit for that period?

Have you discussed that with Social Security Scotland?

That is great. Maybe we can raise that, as well.

Mr Gass, do you want to say anything on that?