Chamber and committees

The Government would argue that it did not really lose the minister for older people; it just did not use the title. In fact, Adam Stachura and I talked about that last week and I commented on the issue in the Sunday Post. I think that older people should be in the title of a forthcoming minister. Removing the reference does not mean that the issues are put to one side; it just makes it look as though those people are not considered to be as important as others, which is an important issue.

Indeed.

Thank you. That is indeed helpful. As normal, I will kick off with a few opening questions and I will then let colleagues in. Two members have already indicated that they wish to ask questions.

The main concern was that, in March, Scottish Government officials presented us with a financial memorandum for scrutiny that they already knew bore no resemblance to the actual bill costs, which they stated. If we look at the updated figures that we have been presented with, it seems that the costs in that memorandum were only about a quarter of the actual costs. I am sure that you will agree that, for the committee to carry out effective scrutiny prior to stage 1, we need the most up-to-date and accurate costs that are available.

There are six people who are keen to come in. Before I bring you in, Craig, I just note that, in your submission, you said:

“The Scottish Parliamentary Committees are themselves too weak and too vulnerable to being co-opted or ignored by Government”,

which I do not think is something that this committee would recognise as reality.

I will open the session to colleagues around the table.

Another issue that came out in our previous evidence session on the bill was the way in which figures are presented in the financial memorandum. Some of the figures are presented exactly, to the last pound, and others have rounding. That is a clear anomaly in a financial memorandum. One would expect one or the other, frankly. Also, we do not normally see the phrase “material and immaterial costs”. I see that Mr McGillivray is nodding. What is your view on that? How is it being addressed?

It sends a signal.

Jo McGilvray, I note that you call in your submission for “a Future Generations Commissioner”.

You say in your submission:

“The Scottish Government itself has admitted a lack of research into the evaluation of effectiveness. We would recommend that this research is conducted as part of the review of the role of Commissioners. We would also recommend that until that review is complete, no new Commissioners are created and that existing Commissioners are not replaced at the end of their term.”

A significant gap would be created if that research were to be delayed in any way.

Five people are still keen to come in, but Ross Greer has been very patient and has been waiting quite a while.