Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024

Official Report 824KB pdf

---

Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill: Financial Memorandum

The next item on our agenda is to take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs on the financial memorandum for the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. The cabinet secretary is joined by Scottish Government officials Donald McGillivray, who is director of safer communities, and Steven Bunch, who is the bill team leader.

I welcome you all to the meeting and invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement.

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.

Thank you. That is indeed helpful. As normal, I will kick off with a few opening questions and I will then let colleagues in. Two members have already indicated that they wish to ask questions.

The main concern was that, in March, Scottish Government officials presented us with a financial memorandum for scrutiny that they already knew bore no resemblance to the actual bill costs, which they stated. If we look at the updated figures that we will be presented with, it seems that the costs in that memorandum were only about a quarter of the actual costs. I am sure that you will agree that, for the committee to carry out effective scrutiny prior to stage 1, we need the most up-to-date and accurate costs that are available.

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.

Indeed.

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.

One of the submissions that we received was from a local authority that is concerned that, because of the increased costs to the budget, there could be an impact on operational policing. Although the amount is not massive compared with those in some of the financial memorandums for bills that the committee is dealing with, the increase is still significant. Can you reassure the committee that there will not be an impact on operational policing due to the updated costs for the bill?

With pleasure, convener. I can very much give that reassurance. The admittedly increased costs that have now been communicated to the committee represent about 0.2 per cent of the overall Police Scotland budget. The most recent figure for Police Scotland’s investment in the functions of training is around £18 million. I appreciate that the change from what the financial memorandum originally set out to the information that is available now is not insignificant. However, it is manageable in terms of Police Scotland’s overall budget, and we will have another budget round later this year.

One of the reasons why the police budget for this financial year increased by £92 million was to demonstrate the importance that the Government places on operational and front-line policing.

Thank you for that. There appears to have been some miscommunication between the bill team and the Scottish Government. For example, it seems that Police Scotland’s change of position is due to the statutory duty in the bill to ensure that officers have undertaken training. Police Scotland has said that that key point was unknown to it, but you say in your response to my letter that Police Scotland has always known that. There seems to have been some kind of miscommunication in that regard.

In my view, the fundamental change to the bill’s policy intentions of taking an existing code of ethics and putting it in statute and placing a new duty on the chief constable have 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.

One of the issues that we raised with the bill team was about the bill being a framework bill. The bill team said:

“The legislation is an enabling and framework bill, and a number of provisions will be set out in secondary legislation.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 26 March 2024; c 6.]

However, in your response to my letter, you said:

“I do not consider the Police Ethics etc Bill to be a framework bill. The Bill is an amending one”.

I wonder why there is that difference in view.

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.

Another issue that came out in our previous evidence session on the bill was the way in which figures are presented in the financial memorandum. Some of the figures are presented exactly, to the last pound, and others have rounding. That is a clear anomaly in a financial memorandum. One would expect one or the other, frankly. Also, we do not normally see the phrase “material and immaterial costs”. I see that Mr McGillivray is nodding. What is your view on that? How is it being addressed?

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.

As the cabinet secretary said, part of the reason for the mixed approach is that, where external organisations gave us numbers that were to the nearest pound, they were inserted straight into the financial memorandum as they were. When we were building up other parts of the financial memorandum within Government, using a variety of methods, we took the view that it would not be meaningful to estimate to the nearest pound, so we took a materiality view of estimating to the nearest £10,000. As you have observed, that led to a slight difference in approach in some of the numbers. The reason for that is simply that we inserted the external numbers that were to the nearest pound as they were.

10:45  

You said—I will quote you—that you “inserted” figures straight into the financial memorandum. What work was done to interrogate the accuracy of the figures that you were given?

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.

I am sure that colleagues want to interrogate the financial memorandum in greater detail, as I have hogged the first 15 minutes of the session, but I will ask one last question before I open it up to them.

One of the costings in the financial memorandum is about the code of ethics and the duty of candour. Those were costed at zero because, originally, they were to be absorbed within the existing police budget. However, that has been reconsidered and we are now looking at a one-off cost of £1,522,000 and recurring costs of £793,500; a breakdown of those costs follows in your letter.

How can there be such a huge differential? Surely there must have been discussions before the bill was introduced on whether there would be such significant costs. It seems to me very odd that a huge section of the financial memorandum was classed at zero cost, given that there is not only a significant initial cost but on-going, recurring costs.

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 will open the session to colleagues around the table.

When the bill team gave evidence to the committee on 26 March, they indicated that it was their intention to publish the updated financial memorandum after stage 2 of the bill. Is that effective procedure, given the need for parliamentary scrutiny?

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.

You mentioned earlier that you were a member of the then Finance and Constitution Committee. Do you accept that, given the parliamentary process that is laid out in the standing orders, it is exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, for a committee to effectively scrutinise, investigate and interrogate the current numbers, because they are not accurate?

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 do not disagree; that is exactly what is laid down in standing orders. The problem is with the timing. That is the difficulty that we are facing. The proposal is that the committee should scrutinise updated figures after stage 2. I think that I can speak for most committee members when I say that we are not satisfied by that because, as I said, it renders our job pretty much impossible.

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.

We all have to abide by standing orders—they are the rules of the Parliament.

The other point that I intended to make was that there are some sensible reasons why the formal process exists for the revised or supplementary financial memorandum to be laid at the end of stage 2. As we all know, the nature of amendments is that they can incur costs.

I am also aware that, because of the revised timing for the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill, stage 2 will take place after the October recess, so there is still some distance to travel. For example, although inflation is decreasing, it has not gone away, and there will be another round of pay settlements.

On the one hand, I am respectful of the committee’s position, but, on the other hand, there are sensible reasons why a revised financial memorandum should be provided after stage 2. It is my recollection that that was the practice that was adopted most recently with the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill, a revised financial memorandum for which was provided post-stage 2.

We are in the very difficult position in which, as the convener set out in his questioning, we are looking at costs that are vastly different from those that were initially presented to the committee. In addition, we understand that the Scottish Government had known about some of the inaccuracies for quite some time—six or seven months, perhaps.

Our problem is that, on what is an important amending bill, we are being asked to make a judgment about matters in relation to which we do not know enough of the facts. I hope that you would agree that that is not good for parliamentary scrutiny.

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.

Thank you for that detailed response—

I apologise for the length of my answer.

—but I do not think that it answers the question. Do you accept that, when it comes to the process of submitting amendments at stage 2, it is possible that we might be hampered by the fact that we will not have a detailed, up-to-date financial memorandum?

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.

11:00  

You cite the example of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill, for which an amended financial memorandum was published after stage 2. The committee was very critical of that financial memorandum, as you may be aware. For the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, we were provided with an update to the financial memorandum prior to stage 2.

Prior to stage 1.

Indeed: prior to stage 1, as the convener has clarified. Is that not a better precedent, so that we could deal with some of the issues that Liz Smith raises?

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.

It is not really a matter of doing it differently; it is to do it in line with what your colleague did in providing an updated financial memorandum prior to stage 1, which is what happened with the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. You are citing the standing orders, which seem to be available to your colleagues. Why not follow them in this circumstance?

I am not going to speak to the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, but I would be interested to go back and look at the process that was taken there—whether things were done by letter, by committee or by a new financial memorandum—and at what the status of that financial memorandum was.

Okay—we can have a look at that.

I have mentioned three of the bills and financial memorandums that we have had before us. The other one to note is the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill.

I am keen to hear your reflections on Government practice in regard to financial memorandums, and particularly that to the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill that is before us. Police Scotland said that the costs were “vastly underestimated” and the Scottish Police Federation said that the estimates were “woefully inadequate”. It is right for us to think about the process by which you arrived at the numbers. Can you describe that process to the committee? What gateways are in place for costing a bill that comes to you, as cabinet secretary? What other colleagues sign off on that process in agreeing with the costs? How does that go through the Government?

There are a number of processes. I will not repeat the points about the on-going engagement that we have had on the bill to implement Dame Elish Angiolini’s specific recommendations.

By the time a financial memorandum comes to me, it has been through a number of internal processes in the civil service, and there is a Cabinet sub-committee clearing process for the policy memorandum, the financial memorandum, the bill and other associated documents.

If Mr Marra would like more information, we can follow up in writing. Is there anything else of substance that would be helpful here, Mr McGillivray?

The only detail that I would add is that there is detailed consideration of the issues by both policy and finance officials before the documents get to ministers. The financial memorandum is signed off by finance officials before it goes to ministers. When I said that the numbers go straight into the financial memorandum, that is after a process of engagement between officials and Police Scotland—in this case—or it could be with any other external organisation that is providing numbers. That engagement will involve both policy and finance officials.

At what level in the civil service would the financial memorandum be signed off?

It is usually signed off by a senior civil servant—at senior civil service level.

What level is that?

In this case it would have been at deputy director level.

That would be both in the policy department—

I would need to check that. If it is different, we will update that.

That would be useful.

I think that that was the case with this bill, however.

At ministerial level, does the finance secretary sign off the financial memorandum for a bill?

Yes.

So, before we received this, it will have been signed off by the Deputy First Minister, who is the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government.

Yes.

Cabinet secretary, you have long experience—17 years or so—of being in the Government. Has the process changed during that time?

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.

My understanding is that there was a significant revision to the process around the time of the Creative Scotland Bill and that additional gateways were introduced. I am keen to understand whether the process has changed since then. It would be useful if that information could be provided.

There is a recurring theme for the committee. We have at least four financial memorandums in front of us that are deeply inadequate and that do not seem to have been properly signed off or scrutinised by Government. As part of our stewardship of the public finances, the committee is keen to understand why that continually happens. Do you have any observations about that recurring theme?

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.

That was the Scottish Police Federation.

For some data, such as any estimate of the number of serious misconduct hearings, we rely entirely on stakeholders, such as Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation, to provide information. The initial information subsequently changed, for reasons that I accept. The only caveat to my remarks is that, with the best will in the world, there is always room to improve processes, procedures and communication. In the world in which we operate, there will always be things that are unpredictable or that change. It is important to recognise that we are not entirely in control of the information that comes to us from independent organisations, although that information is always sought.

Does that also apply to the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill and the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill?

With respect, I am not going to be drawn on the deliberations of other committees.

Cabinet secretary, you are a member of the Cabinet that is responsible for Scotland’s public finances, so it is important that we can ask you about how, as a body, that Cabinet controls the public purse. It is clear that there appears to be no control of public spending across a range of legislation.

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.

On a more cheerful note, I agree with materiality, which I think is a good thing. I may be in a minority on the committee in that regard—I do not know about that.

Mr McGillivray suggested that internal figures are rounded, but I would be inclined to round external figures, too. I cannot remember the exact figures, but some of them go down to the exact pound, when, as you said, it is not meaningful to go down to the exact pound. It is totally meaningless to talk about whether something will cost £354 or £353 in 10 years’ time, and I think that it gives the wrong impression. It gives people the impression that there is a high degree of accuracy, which, frankly, is unrealistic. That is my personal opinion—take it or leave it.

I do not want to repeat what colleagues have said, but I am interested to find out how we got to this point, because, in one sense, I think that it is a one-off. I do not remember a financial memorandum ever coming to us in relation to which there seems to be such a gap between what one of the main players—Police Scotland—thought and what the Government thought, and I am intrigued as to how that happened. Why did Police Scotland not see the bill in a fairly complete stage in order to understand what the requirements were?

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.

I am still struggling a bit. I get that the policy intentions were always clear—you already said that. That is fine, and I think that we are all agreed on that. The police knew the general policy intentions. However, is it the case that, although there was no new information in the detail of the bill that the police did not already know about, perhaps they got a new lawyer that Monday or something, and they looked at it and revised their position? You said that they revisited their position. Did they just have second thoughts, whereby they went away, slept on it and thought, “Oh! Maybe there are going to be costs here”? Was there nothing new in the bill that they did not already know about?

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—

I am sorry to interrupt, but does the police chief constable not always do that?

Well, yes. I am just narrating what Police Scotland has said was one cause for reflection. In my comments to other colleagues—again, forgive me for repeating myself—I have said that Police Scotland has reviewed its approach and has adopted different processes in relation to how it assesses the impact of legislation on its organisation.

That was not done before the bill was introduced, and I am sure that both I and Police Scotland regret that. However, the fact that those processes have now been introduced should give us confidence about the information that we now have. At a corporate and an organisational level, Police Scotland has revisited its processes around how it assesses the impact of legislation on its organisation.

11:15  

The key difference is that it was previously thought that the training in question could be incorporated into the normal training, but now it has been realised that separate, additional training will have to be provided.

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.

Is it fair to say that training is always a bit of a vague thing? You could ask whether any of the seven members of the committee is properly trained, but there is no right answer to that, because we could all get more training. I do not know for how many days a year the police train their officers, but I presume that they prioritise the most important things in that training, as old laws such as the blasphemy law get dropped and new laws come in.

I am also a bit surprised that the police have asked for £X and are getting it. Could they not be pushed to do some of the training within the existing time?

As I said to Ms Smith, once Police Scotland had informed the Scottish Government of the precise nature of its evidence to the committee, there was a period of regular discussion and exploration. Given the financial constraints that we all operate within, you will understand that we do not simply accept it when people say that something will cost £X as opposed to £Y. We have a responsibility to scrutinise that.

The training of new police officers and the on-going training of existing police officers and staff is not a frivolous matter. It is, of course, an operational matter, so I need to be respectful of boundaries here. Training is entirely an operational matter for Police Scotland. I am, of course, well within my rights to test information that I am presented with by Police Scotland, but I accept that we should continue to invest in the training of new and existing police officers and staff.

Good morning. In relation to the financial memorandum for the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, which my colleague Michael Marra brought up, I can confirm that we were brought back an updated FM, which the committee had the chance to scrutinise. Given that, in that case, there was no reverting back to the process that is set out in standing orders, and it was deemed both appropriate and necessary to update the FM, why do you not simply agree to do likewise, and then we would all be happy?

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 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.

I fully accept what you say about the scale of the numbers. A multitude of financial memorandums come before the convener, and the tendency is to pick a sample of those. However, in general terms, this committee has now got its teeth into the rigour around framework bills and, arguably, it is that, as much as anything else, that we are testing here.

The committee looks forward to hearing back from you; I certainly do, because that would be helpful. Although I accept what you say about the pay claim—we understand that—that would come within the margins of uncertainty.

In your replies, you have articulated a compelling case for increased scrutiny on your part with regard to revised costs, so I would find it surprising from the point of view of rigour and good practice in this place if that same respectful position were not adopted with regard to the finance committee, which is, after all, a specialist in this area. The issue for the committee is about good practice and rigour in the face of chronic funding constraints on the public purse.

I certainly accept that the committee is getting its teeth into financial memorandums and framework bills, although let me repeat that this is not a framework bill—

I heard that very clearly.

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.

You have made it very clear that you are accountable for only those areas for which you are accountable. However, I wonder whether I can press you, with regard to some of the evidence that is emerging today and from our previous evidence session, to cascade throughout the entire body of the civil service the need for the processes for the devising of framework bills to be consistent and rigorous.

I say that because we are seeing an emerging pattern that the committee has been driven to write about. I myself have raised the issue in the chamber. That is more in relation to framework bills. I appreciate that you are accountable only for what you are accountable for. However, in your capacity as a cabinet secretary, it would be helpful if you could you see your way to raising that matter generally.

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

Thank you.

I will go back to some of the previous questions. The bill was introduced on 6 June 2023, and at the September Scottish police consultative forum, concerns were raised that the costs for Police Scotland would increase. Were you advised of those concerns or those potential increased costs at that time?

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.

Okay. In March, I said to Mr Bunch:

“in September 2023, Police Scotland raised concerns ... Did it give you a figure at that point, or did you go back to Police Scotland and ask it to revise the costs and provide you with updated parameters, in effect?”

Mr Bunch replied:

“No. We did not know the figure until it was published as evidence to the committee.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 26 March 2024; c 21.]

It appears that you were not aware of any increase for a long time. You said that you asked your officials to interrogate the figures. When did you ask them to do that?

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.

In the committee meeting in March, I asked Graham Thomson:

“Did you have no idea at any point that the £5 million potential cost would be presented? Did that come as a complete surprise to you?”

He said:

“The exact figures were a surprise to us.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 26 March 2024; c 22.]

If the figures had been interrogated properly, should they really have been a surprise?

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—

So, officials were aware of the precise figures in November.

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.

I appreciate that they were not going be revised down, but Mr Thomson said that the £5 million figure was “a surprise”. Obviously, that was when they were presented as evidence to the committee. That was not in November or September, when there were discussions. It seems that there was no real understanding that the figures were going to be so substantially increased.

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.

11:30  

I appreciate that, but you have told us that you did not just sit back and accept the figures. You wanted your officials to interrogate the figures—

From November.

The fact is that the revised costs came out at about £5 million. Even one of your own officials said that that came as a surprise. It is clear that Police Scotland’s figures were not interrogated, if they came as a surprise.

The figures were not there to be interrogated until my officials were informed on 6 November. That is when the interrogation took place.

Should part of the interrogation process not have involved you saying to Police Scotland, “We appreciate that the costs are going to go up. By how much do you think they will go up? What parameters are you working within?” I appreciate that you can look at figures line by line when they come out and ask why that has happened, but given the extent of the increase, surely you should have done some work with Police Scotland to identify by how much the figures were likely to increase.

Extensive work has been done with Police Scotland—

So why was it a surprise when the revised costs came out? Surely your officials should have had an idea that the costs were going to increase substantially.

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?

No—I think that you are completely correct in what you have said. We were told that the figures were going to be higher, but we did not expect them to be revised—

You did not expect them to be revised, but did you ask for any—

We did not expect them to be revised to that level. We were able to see the full detail of the revised figures only when that information was provided to the committee. It was given to us just two days before it was published on the committee’s website.

I might be being unfair, but I think that people who are watching these proceedings will find what has happened hard to understand. There has been a threefold increase in the costs, to £5 million. Officials were talking to Police Scotland and were aware that the figures were going to increase yet, in March, prior to giving evidence, they were still surprised by the level of the increase. Surely an approach should have been taken that at least gave you an idea of by how much the figures were going to increase. Surely you should have been engaging with Police Scotland on that. It sounds as though those figures were not interrogated and that not enough questions were asked.

Do you think that where we are now with the figures is acceptable? Have any lessons been learned by officials, or are there any lessons that you will ask Police Scotland to learn in relation to the disparity between the figures that they initially suggested and those that they submitted?

It is important—I am very much in favour of this—that Police Scotland has revisited its policies and procedures in and around how it assesses the impact of proposed legislation on its organisation, bearing in mind the fact that Police Scotland is best placed to provide information on impacts on operational matters. That is a significant change, which I am reassured by.

As I said to one of your colleagues earlier, you should not think that I am in any way cavalier about public money. I am not content that there has been such an increase in the costs associated with the financial memorandum. We interrogate information as it becomes available to us, but I take considerable heart from the fact that Police Scotland has a new process in place to better assess the impact of legislation on its operations. I do not want the situation that has transpired in relation to the financial memorandum that is before the committee to transpire again in the future in relation to the financial memorandums to any of my bills.

So, you are suggesting that the situation that has arisen is purely a matter of Police Scotland needing to revise how it considers such matters, rather that its being a result of its not having been provided with enough information to make the calculations accurately in the first place.

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 ask my last question. We have talked about increased costs—obviously, that discussion went on considerably. Do you have an estimate of the impact on front-line policing time that the changes will make, given that the costs have gone up because of additional training needs?

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.

I am sorry, but this is additional training: it is new training that Police Scotland will have to provide and for which, you said, it has revised the figures. The costs are new costs, because they arise from the new bill. The fact that the costs have gone up considerably will surely impact on the ability to deliver front-line policing, as will taking off the front line officers who are required to undergo the training.

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.

I understand that it is zero point whatever of the budget, but given the pressure that Police Scotland is under, that will still have an impact. Do you have any estimates—

No, I do not. I will get officials to talk about abstraction—

You are suggesting that £4 million is an inconsiderable—

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.

Earlier, when I asked a similar question, you gave a completely different answer, cabinet secretary.

Did I? I said no to you, that I did not anticipate—

Aye, indeed.

That concludes questions from committee members. I have a couple more questions.

I am sure that I asked this earlier, too. Did your officials interrogate the figures that were given by the police, to check that they were an accurate reflection? My understanding is that officials just accepted the updated figures from the police.

Yes. We interrogate the figures and information that are provided to us.

I did not see any change in the figures.

Which figures?

It appears that the updated figures that the police gave you were accepted as read, and I am pretty sure that that was said by your officials in evidence. Rather than their saying to the police, “Hold on a second, how do you come to this sum and that sum,” it seems as if the police have said, “These are the updated figures,” and the bill team has said, “Okay, fair enough.” That is not usually what happens. Usually, whatever the bill is, people query the costings.

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.

Okay. I have a final question and point. Obviously, we have had a detailed discussion today, as we had on 26 March, but it all stems from the fact that the Government presented to the committee figures that it knew were completely inaccurate. The costs of the bill have evolved hugely since we were given the figures. We are talking about one-off costs tripling from £800,000 to £2.356 million, and recurring costs more than quintupling from £613,000 to £3.443 million. Would not it have made the Government’s life a lot easier if accurate figures had been presented at stage 1?

I hear what you have said about stage 2, but you cannot build a house on sand. If the figures are not accurate prior to stage 1, it just means that they will be even more inaccurate further down the line. Surely, given that the committee is quite tenacious in interrogating financial memorandums, it would have been a lot easier if, knowing that the figures that were going to be given on 26 March were not accurate, they had been updated prior to that date?

The Government knowingly published a financial memorandum last June, based on the best information that we had at the time. The Government did not knowingly present information to this committee that was wrong.

I am sorry, but it did, because nine months later it came to committee with all the additional information. That is why we are here today, because we were unable to scrutinise figures. I know that you do not like us to refer to other bills, but when other ministers and bill teams have come to us and it is clear that the financial memorandum bears no relationship to reality, they have gone away and redrafted it. Given that that has been the case, surely it would have been a lot simpler for the Government to decide that, because there has been a huge difference in the proportions and total sums involved in the bill, it should revise the financial memorandum before coming to the Finance and Public Administration Committee in March. There is no sense in coming to the committee with figures that are wrong, just because they were right nine months earlier.

You have said that stage 2 will not be until after October, so there will be a further difference between the figures in the financial memorandum that was presented in June last year and the figures that will apply in October this year. Surely, therefore, it is common sense to decide that, because the figures have completely changed, you will come to the Finance and Public Administration Committee with a revised financial memorandum. If that had happened, it is unlikely that you would even have had to give evidence today.

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.

We will leave it at that. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their evidence this morning and I thank colleagues for their questions and contributions.

Are members content for me to write to the lead committee to provide an update on the evidence that we have received in relation to the bill, so that it can take that into account in its stage 1 scrutiny?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. I now close the meeting.

Meeting closed at 11:43.