Hansard

This group of amendments lodged by Dr Murray relates to the arrangements for community justice Scotland when reporting on the exercise of its functions or when reporting on the achievement of outcomes throughout Scotland. I regret that I cannot support the amendments, and I will explain why I would urge Dr Murray not to press or move them. I recognise that Dr Murray lodged the amendments largely in order to have a debate on the issues and to seek assurances from ministers about the role of local authorities. I am happy to engage in that debate. Amendments 70 and 71, as I understand them, would amend section 10 to require community justice Scotland to provide a copy of its annual report on the exercise of its functions to each local authority at the same time as it submits a copy to Scottish ministers. Let me clarify that, as an executive non-departmental public body, community justice Scotland is directly and only accountable to Scottish ministers in a legal sense. The bill therefore provides that community justice Scotland is required to submit its annual report to Scottish ministers, who must, in turn, lay the report in Parliament, which reflects the accountability of ministers to the Parliament. The report will then be published. As community justice Scotland is not accountable to local authorities directly, it is not appropriate for local authorities to receive the annual report at the same time as Scottish ministers and before Parliament receives a copy. It is also not appropriate that local authorities receive a copy of the report before any of the other community justice partners, which could unintentionally create an unhelpful de facto hierarchy among the partners. Local authorities, as one of the community justice partners, will of course be consulted on the report as it is prepared, and they will have the opportunity to comment on it then. Thereafter, local authorities may access the report once it has been published and laid in the Parliament—at the same time as the other community justice partners—thus ensuring that all community justice partners are treated in the same way and are equally involved. I recognise, and am happy to put on record, the key delivery role of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities throughout Scotland in the delivery of community justice. It is very positive that COSLA wants to be engaged—I take that as an entirely positive intent. For the reasons that I have given, however, I cannot support amendments 70 and 71. If the committee were minded to agree to amendments 70 and 71, a perceived accountability would be created that would be simply inappropriate. It would create a hierarchy among community justice partners by elevating the importance of local authorities—important though they are—over that of other community justice partners. That would perhaps send the wrong message and would risk difficulty in securing buy-in from the other community justice partners if they felt that there was a perceived hierarchy from the outset. I therefore invite Dr Murray to withdraw and not to move amendments 70 and 71 respectively, although I recognise that she has lodged them in order to have a debate on the issues. Amendment 87 would amend section 25 to require Scottish ministers to convene a meeting of certain persons to consider the report from community justice Scotland on its assessment of “performance in Scotland as a whole in relation to the achievement of nationally determined outcomes.” It has been made clear in our response to consultations on the new model for community justice that the Scottish Government is committed to consulting local government leaders on any decision that has an impact on local financial and commissioning decisions. That would respect the established procedures for the setting of the public sector budget in Scotland. That commitment still stands. I am, of course, generally supportive of meeting key partners to consider community justice Scotland’s assessment of how outcomes are being achieved across Scotland—a point that I have discussed with COSLA representatives. I firmly view that as part of an assurance process whereby outcomes are being improved upon and best practice is being shared. I am happy to discuss a suitable mechanism for that with community justice partners, other partners and community justice Scotland in due course. However, I do not believe that a requirement to have a meeting should be placed in the bill. If the committee were minded to agree to amendment 87, members should bear it in mind that, in my view, the meeting would need to have some purpose other than simply to consider a report. A meeting without a clear purpose and without clearly understood outcomes would not appear to be a good use of time and resources. Furthermore, the amendment as worded would require Scottish ministers only to convene a meeting, but ministers themselves would not be required to attend that meeting. I do not believe that that was Dr Murray’s intended outcome. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 87. There does not need to be a statutory provision to require ministers to convene a meeting of local authority representatives to consider community justice Scotland’s report. I am happy to discuss with COSLA and other stakeholders how we propose to have events to share best practice and identify progress. I invite Dr Murray not to move amendment 87. Finally, amendment 92 would insert a new section into the bill that would require community justice Scotland to report on the delivery of its strategy for innovation, learning and development to the Scottish ministers, local authorities and other appropriate persons. I agree with Dr Murray on the importance of ensuring that that strategy is effectively implemented, but the committee should be aware that amendment 92 would require a report to be produced that is already effectively provided for under section 10. Let me be clear about that so that members are clear about the drafting and the existing provisions in the bill. Under section 10, community justice Scotland must prepare an annual report on the exercise of all its functions during that financial year. One of its functions, as set out in section 3(1)(c), is to promote and support improvement. In pursuance of section 3(1)(c), section 27 requires community justice Scotland to “publish a strategy for innovation, learning and development”, and, in preparing that strategy, to consult “each of the community justice partners, and ... such other persons as it considers appropriate.” Therefore, if we take sections 3, 10 and 27 together, community justice Scotland cannot fully report on its functions to promote and support improvement without also reporting on the delivery of the strategy for innovation, learning and development. The requirement to report on the delivery of the strategy is therefore already in the bill. As I have just explained, the additional reporting process that would be created by amendment 92 is therefore unnecessary. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 92, and I invite the committee not to agree to it. If the committee is minded to agree to it, it should be aware that that would create an unnecessary duplication of effort for community justice Scotland. It would also place a further burden on the Scottish ministers, each local authority and others who would be required to consider that additional and unnecessary report. Amendment 70, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendment 71 not moved. Amendment 30 moved—Paul Wheelhouse—and agreed to. Section 10, as amended, agreed to. Sections 11 and 12 agreed to. After section 12 Amendment 31 moved—Paul Wheelhouse. Amendment 31A not moved. Amendment 31 agreed to.