Seòmar agus comataidhean

First, Mr Mason, we note your personal reflections as someone who, in another life, was a chartered accountant.

It is important to stress that there was a shared understanding at the time that the bill was introduced. Police Scotland, for reasons that I accept, revisited its position, largely in response to work that it had commenced on reviewing its processes and procedures so that it could better assess the impact on the organisation as a whole of any piece of legislation that is relevant to it. That is a very welcome process, which will be an important platform to build on.

Regarding Police Scotland seeing the bill, call me a stickler, but I would not share a bill in detail before it had been laid before the Parliament and introduced. I just would not do that. However, I stress again that the full policy intent was shared. It was simply the case that information changed and the information that the Government was given changed. For example, the reassessment by Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation meant that they came to the view that more misconduct cases were likely, which would cost more in legal costs. That is fairly straightforward.

I apologise for the length of my answer.

I certainly accept that the committee is getting its teeth into financial memorandums and framework bills, although let me repeat that this is not a framework bill—

Which figures?

No, I am not. As I have said, I am less than content with events; however, I am certainly content with the commitment to investing in training for new and existing officers. Our budget this year, which I have no reason to believe will change, has continued to prioritise policing overall, including the importance of front-line policing. I therefore do not accept the point about additional training, notwithstanding the fact that any training involves operational opportunity costs. Your point is overinflated. I am not trying to be rude.

Did I? I said no to you, that I did not anticipate—

First and foremost, I acknowledge the importance of scrutiny at every stage of the process. As well as being a minister of some years’ standing, I am also a former member of the finance committee.

There are two points that are important here. I am simply articulating what Police Scotland has said to us and the committee, which is that, when it saw the precise wording of the bill, particularly in relation to the duties and responsibility of the chief constable to ensure that all police officers and staff are well versed in the code of ethics—

It is always a pleasure to be at the Finance and Public Administration Committee, Mr Gibson, and I hope that I can end on a note of some consensus and at least some contrition by saying that, if I had my time over again, the thing that I would do differently would be that we would write to the committee in advance of officials giving evidence—that is for sure.

I understand the committee’s position—you want as much information as possible and you want that information to be as robust as possible, which is what I want, too. However, I know from my years in the Parliament—I think that Ms Smith and I may have joined the Parliament in the same year—that financial memorandums, under standing orders, are a “best estimate”. They have to contain the best estimate of the information that is available at the time.