Chamber and committees

There has been some debate around this question. To what extent has the Scottish Government provided a reasonable justification for not introducing a mobility component? I especially emphasise that the Government has said that the cost would be quite significant, so maybe you could touch on that. Ms Horne, do you want to start?

I am getting the impression that, in a sense, looking forward is more important than looking back. Was your point that, if something happens to someone suddenly, it is the future that matters more than how long they have had the condition?

Ms Howard, you have oversight of all three payments. Should they be more consistent?

I will follow up on what Adam said. We sometimes struggle a bit to measure things, but uptake of pension credit is a long-running problem—it was a problem when I was in Westminster. That is something that we could measure.

You said that the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales has been around since 2006, and Northern Ireland’s has been around since 2011. I am not expecting an answer right now, but could you come back to us with figures to show whether pension credit uptake has improved in Wales and Northern Ireland?

I do not mean to interrupt you, but, given that you are clearly a strong voice and advocate for those people, why do they need a commissioner, too?

On that point, and based on what Craig Dalzell said, is it important that the words are in a minister’s title?

I will follow on from what Jo McGilvray said. The Carnegie UK submission made the point that a commissioner can make “cost savings”. I want to press you on that. How quickly could that be done? Is it inevitable that the costs will be in year 1 and the savings will be in year 25?

I will say my bit before you come in. Should that be one of the measures? When a commissioner meets a parliamentary committee—whichever committee it is—should that committee ask the commissioner whether their work has produced savings or whatever?

I initially put my hand up to speak in response to some of the things that Rob Holland had said, but Ross Greer asked him about some of those points. The National Autistic Society Scotland submission talks about “improved representation and visibility”. That is fine if there are seven commissioners, but—to go back to Ross Greer’s point—what if we have dozens? If there are 100 commissioners, no one will have much visibility. I realise that you are fighting your own angle, but could you take an overall approach and look at the bigger picture? You might get visibility for a few years with a commissioner, until more commissioners come along.

You also talk in your submission about leveraging finance. Can you tell us what you mean by that? Does that mean that the money would come from other vulnerable groups who did not have a commissioner, or from higher taxation? Where would the money come from?

Perhaps Jo McGilvray can go first.

Is it fair to say that training is always a bit of a vague thing? You could ask whether any of the seven members of the committee is properly trained, but there is no right answer to that, because we could all get more training. I do not know for how many days a year the police train their officers, but I presume that they prioritise the most important things in that training, as old laws such as the blasphemy law get dropped and new laws come in.

I am also a bit surprised that the police have asked for £X and are getting it. Could they not be pushed to do some of the training within the existing time?

I know that it sends a signal, but you could have names that go on for weeks. Surely every issue is covered by a minister, so does it really matter what their title is?

Do you think that the minister cares less about older people because those words are not in their title?