Hansard

At stage 1, the committee and stakeholders spoke in favour of a stronger participative role for the third sector in community justice. I fully recognise that the third sector is vital to the successful planning and delivery of effective and efficient services for individuals, and I am grateful for the positive contribution that the sector makes to community justice at local and national levels. It was always anticipated that relevant third sector bodies should be consulted, which is why the consultation requirements in the bill include the wording “such other persons as it considers appropriate” and “such other persons as they consider appropriate.” However, I have listened to the concerns of the sector and of committee members, so the amendments in the group will make it absolutely clear—I hope that they will put it beyond doubt—that appropriate third sector bodies are to be consulted, thus ensuring that they have the opportunity to contribute their views on planning, reporting, the approach to commissioning of community justice services and the key national strategy and performance framework documents. Amendment 31 will insert a new section that defines the categories of third sector bodies that will be involved in community justice planning for the purposes of the bill. It applies a criterion so that third sector organisations that provide community justice services or perform an advocacy or advisory role will be given the stronger participative role that is described in other amendments in the group. Amendment 31A, which has been lodged by Margaret McDougall, would amend my amendment 31 so that the definition of third sector bodies would expressly include organisations that represent or promote the interests of “victims of offences and their families”. However, as I have just said, my amendment 31 contains a reference to third sector bodies that represent or promote the interests of “other persons who are or may be affected by community justice.” That reference is intentionally broad so that it can include bodies that represent the very people that Margaret McDougall is suggesting in her amendment 31A—that is, victims of offences and affected members of their families. My amendment 31 goes wider than that, in that it would also include bodies that represent others who may be affected by community justice—for example, the families of people who have committed offences. As all those people would be covered by the reference to persons who are “affected by community justice”, to single out any one group in the way that is proposed by amendment 31A might call into question the intended width of the new section that will be introduced by amendment 31. I understand that Margaret McDougall is particularly concerned to ensure that victims and their families are specifically referred to in the bill. I acknowledge that. Although the interests of victims and their families should always be very much at the forefront of our minds, I would wish to adjust some of the wording in amendment 31A to make it more comprehensive and to make it clear that other groups are included, too, including the families of people who have committed offences or who have been arrested under suspicion of committing offences. For that reason, although I recognise the importance of the issue that is raised by Margaret McDougall, I invite her not to move amendment 31A. I invite her instead to work with me to lodge at stage 3 an amendment in her name that the Scottish Government can support. I hope that this is an area on which we can find consensus. Amendments 32, 33 and 34 require that Scottish ministers consult appropriate third sector bodies when they prepare the national performance framework in relation to community justice, and when they prepare, review and revise the national strategy on community justice. Amendment 56 requires that Scottish ministers consult appropriate third sector bodies when they require community justice Scotland to arrange a particular service. Amendments 29, 30 and 35 require that community justice Scotland consult appropriate third sector bodies when it prepares its corporate plan under section 9, when it prepares its annual report on the exercise of its functions under section 10, and when it reviews the national performance framework under section 16. Amendments 51, 55, 58 and 59 require that community justice Scotland consult appropriate third sector bodies when preparing its annual report on the achievement of outcomes across Scotland, as required under section 25, when exercising its power under section 26 to identify, design or make arrangements for the provision of a service in relation to community justice, and when preparing, reviewing and revising the strategy for innovation, learning and development, as required under sections 27 and 28. Amendment 36 will reorder section 18(1) into two subsections, thereby providing greater clarity. Amendment 37 is consequential on amendment 36. Amendments 40 and 41 clarify that the community justice partners that are referred to in section 18 are the community justice partners for the local authority area, and that they must consult the bodies that are covered in the new subsection that will be inserted by amendment 42 if those bodies are not already participating in planning by virtue of the existing section 18(3). Amendment 42 restates the list of consultees, reframed to specifically draw out relevant third sector bodies. Amendment 47 requires community justice partners to consult appropriate third sector bodies when preparing the annual report, which will cover their assessment of whether outcomes are being achieved and their progress toward achieving outcomes. Finally, amendment 63 is consequential on amendment 32 and will add a definition of the third sector to section 32. I will now speak to amendment 98, which has been lodged by Margaret McDougall. The amendment proposes to insert a new section that would require community justice partners to provide a report to community justice Scotland setting out the extent of their engagement with the third sector in preparation of their community justice outcomes improvement plans. I am very grateful to Margaret McDougall for lodging her amendment to address that important issue. It was my intention to say in guidance that the community justice partners should set out, in the plan, who has contributed to it and how they contributed. The purpose of including that in guidance would be to draw out the level of engagement with the third sector and others. Amendment 98 seeks, instead, to express that intention in legislation. I take no issue with the principle of Margaret McDougall’s amendment 98. However, I have a concern with subsections (4) and (5) of the proposed new section, which seek to create a power for Scottish ministers to make further provision about the engagement reports. I consider that to be unnecessary and potentially wasteful of both parliamentary time and Government resources. It would be preferable if—in keeping with other provisions in the bill—that detail were set out in ministerial guidance, following consultation of the third sector and community justice partners. However, as I mentioned, I am sympathetic to the principle behind amendment 98 and would like to work with the member to achieve the result that she wants, but in a more efficient and effective way. In the light of what I have just set out, I invite Margaret McDougall to accept my offer to work with her to lodge an amendment at stage 3—in her name—and not to move amendment 98. I conclude by saying that the contribution of the third sector is vital to the successful delivery of community justice. Given that the committee called for an explicitly stronger participative role for the third sector, I trust that it will recognise the significant amendments in my name as a positive response to its recommendations. I move amendment 29.