Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have narrated that collective responsibility and the processes that are involved in our collective scrutiny. I am not going to get into a debate about specific bills that I am not in charge of.

Yes. Because the code already exists and is being made statutory rather than non-statutory, given its importance to everyday policing and its value in relation to, for example, human rights, the previous understanding was that the training costs could be absorbed and the training could be done by being absorbed into existing modules, but Police Scotland has now come to a different view.

I did not realise that I was here to make people happy, tempting though that is. I will go away and look in more detail at what happened in relation to the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, although I emphasise that the bill before the committee is not on a par with that bill in terms of size or magnitude, nor is it a framework or enabling bill.

When my officials were here, you mentioned the fact that there are additional risks with framework bills, in that significant decisions are taken further down the line. Therefore, I could see why there would be a case for a different procedure to be adopted with the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, given its magnitude and the magnitude of public resource to be invested in the new service.

However, the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill is small. It has 16 substantial provisions and three ancillary ones—it is not a massive bill. I absolutely appreciate the change in some columns from zero to not insignificant sums of money. I assure you that that is not how I would have wished events to be, but the cost of the bill to Police Scotland is somewhat small—it is 0.2 per cent of the organisation’s overall budget.

However, I will reflect on matters. I will not make any false promises about providing a revised financial memorandum earlier. After the previous evidence session, I took advice from parliamentary business colleagues. My one concern about updating the financial memorandum now is that we still have this year’s pay claim to come, so there are other potential changes coming down the track.

Extensive work has been done with Police Scotland—

I will bring in Mr Bunch in a minute. The facts of the matter are that officials did not know the precise figures until November, so Police Scotland, after intimating—

We accepted the figures from Police Scotland in March, and there had been substantive discussions since its written evidence to the committee in November. The figures were interrogated.

Thank you, convener. I am appreciative of the opportunity to join you all this morning and to answer any questions that you have. If you are content, I am more than happy to dispense with opening remarks, bearing in mind that you have heard from Scottish Government officials and I have written to the committee. I do not want to waste the committee’s valuable time in repeating what you already know. Therefore, convener, I am happy to go straight to questioning.

I therefore understand your role, remit and responsibilities in that regard very well. I of course have to acknowledge that the changes to the financial memorandum are significant. Would I have preferred what I know now to have been in the original presentation, along with the bill? Absolutely. My officials have narrated that the financial memorandum that was produced and published along with the bill last June was based, in accordance with standing orders, on the best information that was available at that time.

As the committee is aware, Police Scotland, which is a significant partner, reconsidered its position after the bill was published. I contend that that was for legitimate reasons. After significant scrutiny on behalf of the Government, we are accepting the information that Police Scotland and other partners presented. I acknowledge, however, that the change is not insignificant. Although it is a very small part of the overall policing budget of £1.55 billion, I am nonetheless acutely aware—as members of the committee are—that, right now, every pound in the public purse is precious.

In my view, the bill’s policy intentions—the fundamental change of taking an existing code of ethics and putting that in statute, and placing a new duty on the chief constable—have always been well communicated. I am confident that the policy intent of the bill was well explained and explored, in part because of the governance arrangements around the implementation of the Dame Elish Angiolini independent review on police misconduct and the complaints system, in which the bill is rooted. The bill is based on 35 of the legislative recommendations that Dame Elish made, and there were robust governance arrangements around implementing her non-legislative recommendations.

There was extensive communication and positive working together between the Government and Police Scotland on the implementation of Dame Elish’s work. Parliament was kept up to date with that via Government-initiated questions and other correspondence, principally—if I recall correctly—on a six-monthly basis. Police Scotland was led to reconsider its position over a period of time—it did not do so immediately—by the specific wording of the legislation.

I am sure that the committee will appreciate that the Government does not share a draft bill before it is introduced to Parliament. We discuss the policy intent. There is also the three-week period before the introduction of a bill when it lies with the Parliament and we do not discuss the written detail.

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.