Chamber and committees

That is reassuring. We have talked a lot about churn—people moving around. Can I ask you about what happens when you have knowledgeable, experienced civil servants retiring? Is there a cut-off or are you able to smooth that process so that you do not lose all the experience?

I appreciate that full answer. However, do you accept that a bus pass is not quite the same as having a car, which gives you a lot of mobility? In many areas, there are no buses, so a bus pass is worth nothing. I take the example of my mother. Latterly, her walking was so poor and she fell so often that going on a bus became impossible for her. She had the bus pass, she could go on the bus for free and there was even a bus route that went past her door, but she still could not use the bus. I suspect that there are quite a lot of people in that position.

Another angle is that there seems to be a bit of inconsistency with regard to age. If somebody applies for the mobility component just before they reach pension age, I understand that it carries on after they reach pension age. However, if somebody applies after they have reached pension age, they cannot get it at all. Do you accept that there is a bit of inconsistency, or that there appears to be?

Okay. I will leave it at that just now.

Should there be an automatic entitlement? That would be simpler.

This follows on from Jeremy Balfour’s mention of money. Cabinet secretary, as you probably gathered, a number of witnesses have been looking for a mobility component for PADP. I just want to throw that out there. What is your reaction to the suggestion that there should be a mobility component?

Sticking with your committee, we have the Ethical Standards Commissioner and the Standards Commission for Scotland. Do we need both? They both defended themselves when they were here, but I remain unconvinced that we need two separate bodies.

To start with, I will follow on from what Michael Marra asked you, Ms Haughey. You have said various things. You specifically talked about system-wide issues, and then you said that, because of the history of the problems through the 1960s and so on, that is specifically why there is a need for the patient safety commissioner. I am asking you to speculate a bit, but do you think your committee would take a different view if a commissioner was proposed for something specific such as multiple sclerosis or arthritis? Some of the arguments are that some people’s voices are not being heard, and their voices would be heard more if there was a commissioner for different kinds of disability—that has been proposed—and so on and so forth.

Was the patient safety commissioner unique because of the circumstances?

I realised that from one of your colleagues. Our earlier witnesses said when they were speaking for their committee and when they were speaking for themselves. We can take that on board if you want.

I have mentioned specific cases, but my underlying question is about how, on the one hand, we avoid having a huge organisation that would cover everything and how, on the other hand, we avoid having so much overlap. It seems that the more commissioners we have, the more overlap there will be, and your committee might suffer as a result of that.

Do you think that, because young people do not have a vote, there is a special argument for their commissioner—