Chamber and committees

Convener, to be utterly candid, being told that significant stakeholders have revised their costs is not music to my ears—although, in this instance, I accept the reasons for that—because, when people revise costs, they very rarely revise them downwards. Bearing in mind that, in real terms, over two years, we as a Government lose £0.5 billion of real worth in our spending power, every public pound is absolutely precious.

You will know that the initial understanding between my officials and Police Scotland was that, bearing in mind that there were existing training arrangements and an existing code of ethics, those costs would be absorbed. Police Scotland revised its position because it has taken constructive steps internally to understand more, and earlier, about the impacts and costs of legislation for Police Scotland as a whole. That is positive for the future and positive when it comes to the information that has been flushed out.

I would of course have preferred all that information to have been available before the financial memorandum was published, but it was not, because of the shared understanding that there were existing training arrangements—as I said, Police Scotland spends around £18 million on training—and an existing code. However, because of the detailed wording of the bill, which means that the code will be strengthened by being put on a statutory basis and that the duties of the chief constable will be strengthened, Police Scotland wants to strengthen its training arrangements. Bearing in mind some of the evidence that the Criminal Justice Committee is now hearing on the need for the bill, I welcome the fact that Police Scotland is committed to investing in training on the bill’s implementation.

I well and truly understand the need for parliamentary scrutiny at all stages of the process. I have looked closely at the Official Report of the meeting when my officials gave evidence to the committee and I received correspondence from the convener following the evidence session. I have carefully considered the issues that were raised. I am bound by the standing orders. I am also aware that the committee has had lengthy correspondence from the Minister for Parliamentary Business and that the permanent secretary will give evidence to the committee soon. As you would expect, if standing orders or procedures across the piece were to change, I would comply with those changes.

I will make two points. I understand that you want to have as much information as possible, and as much information as possible that will not change subsequently—I concede that. I do not appreciate change, although I must accept that it happens and that there are sometimes good reasons for it to happen.

As far as Police Scotland’s reconsideration is concerned, our understanding is that last autumn, through the Scottish police consultative forum, Police Scotland intimated that its understanding was changing and that it felt that the costs—especially those relating to training and other matters—had been underestimated. However, at that time, Police Scotland still had to go through its internal approval process with regard to what its view on the specific numbers was. As my officials said the last time that the committee considered the matter, Police Scotland provided the Scottish Government with the evidence that it submitted to this committee on 6 November, which was two days before it was published.

I hope that what I am about to say gives some reassurance to the committee. I say this with respect to Police Scotland and to other major stakeholders. When people tell me that costs have been revised upwards, I am not in any way cavalier about that. I do not just say, “Okay then—so be it.” I expect my officials to go and interrogate those revised costs, because it is crucial that we have a shared and very detailed understanding of why those costs have been revised. In March, on the basis of that interrogation process, we came to the conclusion that we accepted the new information that Police Scotland had provided.

I do not want to irritate the committee by repeating what I said earlier. I am here to talk about a specific bill and a specific memorandum. If the Parliament wishes business to be done differently, I am entirely respectful of that.

Mr Bunch will correct me if I am wrong, but the evidence that my officials gave to the committee was that the Scottish Government was provided with Police Scotland’s evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on 6 November, two days before its evidence was published on 8 November. Mr Bunch can confirm that that was when he knew the figures. Prior to that, Police Scotland had intimated, at the Scottish police consultative forum, that it was relooking at the figures; it thought that they were wrong. Our reading of that was that the figures would not be revised down because they could not be.

From November.

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.