Seòmar agus comataidhean

I understand the committee’s position, because it has been clear in articulating it. As things stand, it is my understanding that there is no formal mechanism to revise a financial memorandum in advance of stage 2 of a bill. However, ministers are beholden to keep committees updated. I have written at length to the committee and would have had every intention of doing so, irrespective of whether officials had been called to give evidence. All that I am pointing to, Ms Smith, is that there is a cross-Parliament, cross-Government perspective on the matter and my voice is part of that. The strongest message that I can give to the committee is that I have to abide by standing orders. If those were to change, then so be it.

But you have detailed, up-to-date financial information now. I am pointing to the fact that that information has been made available now. People may have strong views about the formality of a process around that, but I consider a letter to this committee and to the Criminal Justice Committee as an important and significant way to put information into the public domain, and committee members can make use of such letters as they see fit.

I do not think that it was expected that there would be a substantial increase. I reiterate that officials’ understanding from the Scottish police consultative forum was that Police Scotland was working through internal processes before it approved a figure; it has its own internal processes to go through before it gives evidence to a parliamentary committee. It is not a matter of someone sitting in an office and just saying, “Actually, I think those figures are wrong.” That has to be signed off at senior level in Police Scotland.

That is not the case. People are not informed until they are informed. Police Scotland has its own internal processes to go through. Forgive me, but I think that I am being really clear here.

Mr Bunch, is there anything that you would like to add that I have not communicated?

Thank you for that. We are in the terrain where increased scrutiny all round is absolutely imperative, bearing in mind that every public pound is a prisoner. I am not going to make promises on the hoof. However, as I hope that I have managed to demonstrate, we will always give matters further consideration.

If I may reply generally, Ms Thomson, I do not think that anyone has missed the committee’s views.

I did so once I knew in November that the figures had been revised upwards. I do not want to irritate the committee by repeating myself, but I will say that I and my officials do not just accept it when significant stakeholders revise costs. I accept the reasons why they have done so and the final position in this instance, but there was a period of discussions and testing between publication of Police Scotland’s evidence to the committee and officials coming to the committee.

I will double check that. My time in the Government has not been continuous—hence my time on this committee—and there may have been some changes. I am not aware of any changes, but I will double check.

That work took place over a period both before and after the introduction of the bill. I will not repeat myself on the oversight and governance arrangements in the implementation of Dame Elish Angiolini’s recommendations. However, there are forums such as the Scottish police consultative forum, in which we engage with partners, and there is engagement outwith this jurisdiction—for example, with the Metropolitan Police, bearing in mind its experiences and the path that it has trodden, and with the Home Office.

Yes.