Seòmar agus comataidhean

As far as I am aware, that would take place through the usual budget process. However, if such a specific situation were to become an issue, it could be monitored. In addition, the secure care centres in Scotland are discussing how they can manage such issues. I am confident, therefore, that that could be managed.

I am sorry, but I cannot necessarily give an answer as to why those bodies feel that they could not engage. They were involved in the group that was set up to establish the financial memorandum and have been engaged in the continued discussions. You said that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service had raised concerns. Is that correct?

I apologise if I have given the impression that I think that more information will be coming forward. What I meant is that the information that we have gathered from stakeholders thus far, and the evidence that we have heard in committees, will ultimately feed into that process, whereby stakeholders and organisations can come together with Government to discuss those issues and present new costs.

It is not that I believe that there will be any new information. The new memorandum will be based on the discussions and the work of the working group that has already been going on thus far, which will feed into it.

Not just now, but the funding would be for the full financial year, so that would not be an issue for secure care centres at the moment.

As I said, we are working with local government on that, and examples of where we could have done things differently in the bill have already come up. For example, when we created the financial memorandum, we used the lower number for the projected number of hearings, but we now accept that the higher figure should have been used. That will be updated in any updated financial forecast.

With regard to your wider point about reassurances, I am using that example to show you that we are taking cognisance of decisions that have already been made and where things can be improved, and that we are working with local government to ensure that this runs the way we want it to.

Absolutely. It is a priority for us to get this right, because we want it to be implemented appropriately. As I have said, the financial memorandum was a snapshot in time. The committee evidence and scrutiny will feed into it and will help to direct and input to the conversations that will take place on the finances that are needed. We will also continue to press the UK Government for additional funding for joint priorities, and we would welcome support from across the Parliament, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities in that respect. I assure the committee that this is absolutely a priority for us, and we are well tuned into it.

As far as I am aware, it will take heed of inflation. I will pass over to one of my officials to clarify that.

It comes back to what I have been saying. COSLA was involved in the discussions that led to the creation of the financial memorandum. However, I understand that it has now raised specific concerns about the funding. COSLA will be feeding into the 5 June working group and we will be engaging with COSLA and working through the matter in discussion with it. Those reassurances will come as discussions go forward.

I would not say that it is not accurate. I would say that, as I mentioned, it was an accurate snapshot of the issues and the finance that would be required at that moment.

The financial memorandum was not based on the engagement with stakeholders but they contributed to it to a high degree. Wider issues, such as the cost of living and inflation, have impacted on it. They could not have been factored in when it was created. As with any legislation, we need to set out the financial considerations for the bill at the time.

I do not necessarily want to say what I think should be in the new financial memorandum; that will be something for the working group to discuss, based on the evidence that we have heard so far and the issues that have arisen with the first financial memorandum.

I think that the meeting will be very useful and beneficial for the updated costs. The timing of it is expressly to pick up on the stage 1 committee evidence, to which I referred in my previous answer, and to support any necessary revision and updating work ahead of stage 2. The costs will need uprated and updated—there is no getting away from that. As I said, however, I think that the engagement and the evidence that we have had so far will be the best method to prompt discussions around the working group and its future work.