Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

It is important—I am very much in favour of this—that Police Scotland has revisited its policies and procedures in and around how it assesses the impact of proposed legislation on its organisation, bearing in mind the fact that Police Scotland is best placed to provide information on impacts on operational matters. That is a significant change, which I am reassured by.

As I said to one of your colleagues earlier, you should not think that I am in any way cavalier about public money. I am not content that there has been such an increase in the costs associated with the financial memorandum. We interrogate information as it becomes available to us, but I take considerable heart from the fact that Police Scotland has a new process in place to better assess the impact of legislation on its operations. I do not want the situation that has transpired in relation to the financial memorandum that is before the committee to transpire again in the future in relation to the financial memorandums to any of my bills.

Well, yes. I am just narrating what Police Scotland has said was one cause for reflection. In my comments to other colleagues—again, forgive me for repeating myself—I have said that Police Scotland has reviewed its approach and has adopted different processes in relation to how it assesses the impact of legislation on its organisation.

That was not done before the bill was introduced, and I am sure that both I and Police Scotland regret that. However, the fact that those processes have now been introduced should give us confidence about the information that we now have. At a corporate and an organisational level, Police Scotland has revisited its processes around how it assesses the impact of legislation on its organisation.

The other point that I intended to make was that there are some sensible reasons why the formal process exists for the revised or supplementary financial memorandum to be laid at the end of stage 2. As we all know, the nature of amendments is that they can incur costs.

I am also aware that, because of the revised timing for the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill, stage 2 will take place after the October recess, so there is still some distance to travel. For example, although inflation is decreasing, it has not gone away, and there will be another round of pay settlements.

On the one hand, I am respectful of the committee’s position, but, on the other hand, there are sensible reasons why a revised financial memorandum should be provided after stage 2. It is my recollection that that was the practice that was adopted most recently with the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill, a revised financial memorandum for which was provided post-stage 2.

Yes.