Chamber and committees

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.

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?