Chamber and committees

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.

Some of the information that is required for the calculations comes from justice partner organisations—it does not come from the Government. There was key information that we were relying on Police Scotland and other partners to provide.

I will bring in officials in a moment.

We have increased the budget for this financial year to prioritise front-line policing. Obviously, Police Scotland has operational responsibility for training. Part of its costs relate to abstraction of officers when they undertake training, as would be the case for any training.

My view and my understanding of that is that we took the information that we were given. Where we were given specific information, particularly where the source was operational organisations, it was placed in the financial memorandum. However, I have had a close look at the Official Report as well as the correspondence from the committee, and I note and take seriously the committee’s remarks.

I ask Mr McGillivray—or Mr Bunch, if need be—to say a wee bit more about the aspect of material costs.

I have closely read the committee’s more general observations and frustrations. I think that financial memorandums have improved over time, not only because they are lengthier: that improvement is as much about quality of information as it is about quantity.

You referred to a stakeholder who said that the estimates were woefully inadequate.