Government officials challenged over ‘out of kilter’ costs for policing Bill

Scottish Government figures on the costs of policing reforms have been branded “vastly out of kilter” by an MSP scrutinising legislation.

Members of the Finance and Public Administration Committee quizzed Government officials on the financial impact of legislation being brought forward by ministers to provide “greater clarity” around police complaints and misconduct processes.

Graham Thomson, the head of legislation and divisional development, conceded to the committee the figures provided need to be updated.

Financial papers published as part of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill state the annual costs of implementing the legislation could be between £520,474 and £1,414,474.

But Labour’s Michael Marra told the Government official the financial memorandum was “not fit for purpose as it stands”.

He insisted the costs quoted in the paper are “vastly out of kilter” with what MSPs have been told.

Mr Marra said: “The evidence would indicate the costs are up to three-and-a-half times higher than those you have presented so far.”

Committee convener Kenneth Gibson, meanwhile, said the figures in the financial memorandum date back to 2022, adding he was “bewildered” old data had been used.

Mr Gibson told the Government officials: “We’re being presented with a set of figures that actually don’t really mean anything.

“You’re effectively saying the financial memorandum, all 22 pages of it, really isn’t worth the paper it is written on.”

Mr Thomson said the Government will “look to update parts” of the financial memorandum.

He told the committee: “I wouldn’t accept it’s not worth the paper it’s written on, but I do think there are elements we will update.”

The official had earlier said he recognises “there is a difference between the costs set out in the financial memorandum and the evidence you have received as a committee”.

He added that officials are “working to revise that financial memorandum with the intention of publishing a revised version”.

The criticism of the costings came as the officials also came under fire for using framework legislation for the Bill – meaning key details will only be decided later by regulations.

Mr Gibson complained that “many of the Bill’s provisions require secondary legislation to be fully implemented” as he questioned why these had not been included in the legislation itself.

Fellow SNP MSP Michelle Thomson said using framework legislation carries a “significant risk” to the public purse.

She said this is because the costs involved may not be fully known until a later stage, with the committee unable to “really look in detail at them”.

She said: “We’ve seen an increasing number of framework Bills, and framework Bills carry significant risk to the public purse.

“From a public purse point of view, they represent a really significant risk to a waste of money.

In genuine honesty, if it were me, I would be developing a detailed risk assessment of using a framework Bill for this type of legislation, from a purely financial perspective.”

Mr Marra said there has been a “very marked increase in the number of framework Bills the Parliament is looking at”, with Conservative MSP Liz Smith adding: “I don’t know how many framework Bills we have in this Parliament just now, but it is a lot.”

Mr Thomson said officials involved in the Bill “haven’t personally had any discussions about the impact of framework legislation”.

But he added it was felt the “best way” the Bill could be implemented was through such legislation.

He said he will “take away the point” the MSPs were making, but added: “There is also potentially a question there for ministers as well.”