Seòmar agus comataidhean

Cabinet secretary, you are a member of the Cabinet that is responsible for Scotland’s public finances, so it is important that we can ask you about how, as a body, that Cabinet controls the public purse. It is clear that there appears to be no control of public spending across a range of legislation.

That was the Scottish Police Federation.

We have talked about outcomes and the two groups that are principally advocating for new commissioners. There was a bit of focus on the case that has been made, but I have still not heard examples of outcomes having been improved in Scotland as a result of having a commissioner.

Rob Holland, your survey showed that 94 per cent of respondents said that they were supportive of a commissioner—I think that that was question 4 of your survey. I feel that the methodology supported the concept, because you could have asked people, “In the absence of evidence of improved outcomes, do you support a commissioner?” Did you present evidence of improved outcomes to people who filled in the survey, or did you tell them that there was none?

It is not really a matter of doing it differently; it is to do it in line with what your colleague did in providing an updated financial memorandum prior to stage 1, which is what happened with the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. You are citing the standing orders, which seem to be available to your colleagues. Why not follow them in this circumstance?

Okay—we can have a look at that.

I have mentioned three of the bills and financial memorandums that we have had before us. The other one to note is the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill.

I am keen to hear your reflections on Government practice in regard to financial memorandums, and particularly that to the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill that is before us. Police Scotland said that the costs were “vastly underestimated” and the Scottish Police Federation said that the estimates were “woefully inadequate”. It is right for us to think about the process by which you arrived at the numbers. Can you describe that process to the committee? What gateways are in place for costing a bill that comes to you, as cabinet secretary? What other colleagues sign off on that process in agreeing with the costs? How does that go through the Government?

In what areas have there been improved outcomes? I put that question to the children’s commissioner last week. We see increasing levels of child poverty, declining educational attainment and a mental health crisis among young people. The children’s commissioner has been around for 21 years, but I am not sure that I have seen evidence of improved outcomes.

What level is that?

Indeed: prior to stage 1, as the convener has clarified. Is that not a better precedent, so that we could deal with some of the issues that Liz Smith raises?

Does that also apply to the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill and the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill?

That is useful. Have outcomes improved?