Chamber and committees

I do not disagree; that is exactly what is laid down in standing orders. The problem is with the timing. That is the difficulty that we are facing. The proposal is that the committee should scrutinise updated figures after stage 2. I think that I can speak for most committee members when I say that we are not satisfied by that because, as I said, it renders our job pretty much impossible.

We all have to abide by standing orders—they are the rules of the Parliament.

That raises an interesting point for us as a committee. The commissioners in place so far have a variety of different roles: some are investigative, some deal with complaints and some deal with advocacy. So far, you have said that you think that an older persons commissioner would have primarily an advocacy role, but you also mentioned investigative aspects to that. One of the difficulties that we face—apart from the cost aspect, which is a central concern for the committee—is how we would align the roles of different commissioners if there were to be new ones. I think that it is incumbent on you to explain to us what you would see as the prime role if there was to be a commissioner for older people.

I have two questions, Mr Stachura. You rightly said that the older demographic is a very high proportion—40 per cent—of the population. That group has multiple interests and concerns. Do you believe that, if there was to be a commissioner, you would be able to deal with all those interests and concerns?

Do you see any role for a commissioner in dealing with complaints? Obviously that would not be in a legal context, because such issues would probably have to go to other commissioners, but do you see that as an aspect in which a commissioner might be involved?

You mentioned earlier that you were a member of the then Finance and Constitution Committee. Do you accept that, given the parliamentary process that is laid out in the standing orders, it is exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, for a committee to effectively scrutinise, investigate and interrogate the current numbers, because they are not accurate?

We are in the very difficult position in which, as the convener set out in his questioning, we are looking at costs that are vastly different from those that were initially presented to the committee. In addition, we understand that the Scottish Government had known about some of the inaccuracies for quite some time—six or seven months, perhaps.

Our problem is that, on what is an important amending bill, we are being asked to make a judgment about matters in relation to which we do not know enough of the facts. I hope that you would agree that that is not good for parliamentary scrutiny.

Thank you for that detailed response—

When the bill team gave evidence to the committee on 26 March, it indicated that it was its intention to publish the updated financial memorandum after stage 2 of the bill. Is that effective procedure, given the need for parliamentary scrutiny?

—but I do not think that it answers the question. Do you accept that, when it comes to the process of submitting amendments at stage 2, it is possible that we might be hampered by the fact that we will not have a detailed, up-to-date financial memorandum?