Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will make two points. I understand that you want to have as much information as possible, and as much information as possible that will not change subsequently—I concede that. I do not appreciate change, although I must accept that it happens and that there are sometimes good reasons for it to happen.

As far as Police Scotland’s reconsideration is concerned, our understanding is that last autumn, through the Scottish police consultative forum, Police Scotland intimated that its understanding was changing and that it felt that the costs—especially those relating to training and other matters—had been underestimated. However, at that time, Police Scotland still had to go through its internal approval process with regard to what its view on the specific numbers was. As my officials said the last time that the committee considered the matter, Police Scotland provided the Scottish Government with the evidence that it submitted to this committee on 6 November, which was two days before it was published.

I hope that what I am about to say gives some reassurance to the committee. I say this with respect to Police Scotland and to other major stakeholders. When people tell me that costs have been revised upwards, I am not in any way cavalier about that. I do not just say, “Okay then—so be it.” I expect my officials to go and interrogate those revised costs, because it is crucial that we have a shared and very detailed understanding of why those costs have been revised. In March, on the basis of that interrogation process, we came to the conclusion that we accepted the new information that Police Scotland had provided.

I do not want to irritate the committee by repeating what I said earlier. I am here to talk about a specific bill and a specific memorandum. If the Parliament wishes business to be done differently, I am entirely respectful of that.

Mr Bunch will correct me if I am wrong, but the evidence that my officials gave to the committee was that the Scottish Government was provided with Police Scotland’s evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on 6 November, two days before its evidence was published on 8 November. Mr Bunch can confirm that that was when he knew the figures. Prior to that, Police Scotland had intimated, at the Scottish police consultative forum, that it was relooking at the figures; it thought that they were wrong. Our reading of that was that the figures would not be revised down because they could not be.

From November.

The figures were not there to be interrogated until my officials were informed on 6 November. That is when the interrogation took place.

I was advised of two things. In November, I was advised that Police Scotland had revised its costs upwards. I was always aware that officials were regularly engaging with partners and regularly asking for specific data, particularly on the number of potential misconduct cases.

Let me be crystal clear, convener. I have never considered the bill to be a framework bill. It is an amending bill. It is not a framework or an enabling bill. The vast majority of the substantial provisions are on the face of the bill. Only four of the 16 substantive provisions could be described in any way as enabling.

The reality is that matters in and around police conduct procedures are very regulated, and much of that is already in regulation, so aspects of the bill are focused on amending regulations. The bill amends the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.

I will point to my experience. I recall very well the original social security legislation. The Social Security (Scotland) Bill was a vast, enabling framework bill that was co-designed. Social Security Scotland was to be built up from the grass roots, based on service user experience. That is not the case with the bill that we are discussing, which is rooted in clear recommendations from Dame Elish Angiolini, so it has not been co-produced. That does not mean that it is not informed by stakeholders, such as the Scottish Police Federation and Police Scotland, or by the voices of people who have had unsatisfactory experiences as a result of matters involving misconduct and complaints processes. However, the bill is in no way a framework bill and it is not a bill that has been co-designed in our normal understanding of that. It is firmly rooted in specific recommendations from Dame Elish Angiolini.

I absolutely understand your point that the training is not wrapped up in existing training, but is new and additional. I accept that there has been a not insignificant increase in the costs that are associated with the training. However, it is still only 0.23 per cent of the overall Police Scotland budget.

For some data, such as any estimate of the number of serious misconduct hearings, we rely entirely on stakeholders, such as Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation, to provide information. The initial information subsequently changed, for reasons that I accept. The only caveat to my remarks is that, with the best will in the world, there is always room to improve processes, procedures and communication. In the world in which we operate, there will always be things that are unpredictable or that change. It is important to recognise that we are not entirely in control of the information that comes to us from independent organisations, although that information is always sought.

I am not going to speak to the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, but I would be interested to go back and look at the process that was taken there—whether things were done by letter, by committee or by a new financial memorandum—and at what the status of that financial memorandum was.