Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, January 24, 2019

Official Report 746KB pdf

---

Section 22 Report

---

“The 2017/18 audit of Community Justice Scotland”

Item 2 is an evidence session on the section 22 report “The 2017/18 audit of Community Justice Scotland”. I welcome our witnesses from the Scottish Government: Paul Johnston, director general of education, communities and justice; Neil Rennick, director for justice; and Donna MacKinnon, deputy director and head of the community justice division.

I understand that Paul Johnston wants to make an opening statement.

Yes, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to provide evidence to the committee in response to the Auditor General for Scotland’s report on Community Justice Scotland.

As director general for education, communities and justice, I am the portfolio accountable officer for the Scottish Government. Sponsorship responsibility sits in the justice directorate, which is led by my colleague Neil Rennick, and community justice sits in the division that is the responsibility of my colleague Donna MacKinnon.

The accountable officer for Community Justice Scotland is its chief executive, Karyn McCluskey. Community Justice Scotland is the national body for community justice in Scotland. It was launched on 1 April 2017 following the passage of the Community Justice (Scotland) Act 2016. It aims to create a more robust and effective system of community justice across Scotland, based on local planning and delivery by a wide range of partners.

The Auditor General’s report relates to Community Justice Scotland’s first full year of operation. We fully acknowledge her findings. The report acknowledges that some actions have been taken to address the issues raised, including the recruitment of four new board members. A recruitment round for a new permanent chair is currently open for applicants.

Both the chief executive and the acting chair have confirmed that Community Justice Scotland has taken actions in response to the report, including the appointment of a deputy chair and the strengthening of financial capability.

There is wider learning to be taken from the report, including the actions that are needed when our public appointments process does not identify sufficient numbers of board members. The report also reminds us of our need to work tirelessly to ensure that those on our public body boards have the necessary skills and diversity.

Community Justice Scotland is a relatively new organisation. It has a key role in our justice system. Over its first 20 months of operation, it has already made progress on a number of areas—I hope that we will have the opportunity to describe and discuss some of that progress—including training and developing a wide range of community justice workers and widespread public engagement and communication.

I am happy to take questions on the actions that have been and are being taken in response to the Auditor General’s report.

Thank you, Mr Johnston. I ask Colin Beattie to open the committee’s questioning.

I have a very straightforward question. Given that, over a number of years, the committee has expressed concern about governance as a result of reports from the Auditor General, why did you take your eye off the ball on this one?

I do not accept that I took my eye off the ball. We are looking at an organisation that has made real progress in its first 20 months of operation, as I said in my opening statement. Whenever a new organisation is established, we hand responsibility over to a new board for it to discharge its functions. We seek to support the board to do that, and we can describe the wide range of support that we provided to Community Justice Scotland in setting up the body—my colleague Neil Rennick has been at the forefront of that work over the 20 months—which has helped the board to get established and, ultimately, to get a clean audit report, in that the accounts are unqualified. Of course, not everything is perfect. We have had issues and challenges, and it is important that we take those on board and learn lessons.

When did you become aware that the board’s membership arrangements were not compliant?

I will explain a little bit about the 2016 act’s requirements with regard to board members. It is quite important that—

Would you answer Colin Beattie’s question first and then elaborate? I think that he asked about when you—

My point is that the act makes provision for the situation. The important point and qualification is that the situation was not non-compliant.

The 2016 act states that the number of board members should be between five and eight, but it has a provision that anticipates the possibility of membership vacancies. When we recognised that the initial recruitment process had produced only four members, we relied on the act’s vacancy provision and appointed another individual to act as a board adviser. Neil Rennick might like to say a little more about those provisions and the steps that we took, if that would be helpful for the committee.

Can I ask for clarification? That is not what the Auditor General says about the act in her report. She quotes the act, which says that Community Justice Scotland consists of

“a member appointed by the Scottish Ministers to chair Community Justice Scotland, and ... at least 5 but no more than 8 other members”.

There is no mention of any qualifications or variations.

I refer you to paragraph 12 of schedule 1 to the act, in which Parliament stated:

“The validity of anything done by Community Justice Scotland ... is not affected by ... a vacancy in membership”.

On the basis of the advice that we took, we concluded that the board could continue to properly discharge its responsibilities on the basis that there was a vacancy.

Our intention when initially recruiting was to appoint up to eight members. You will appreciate that we must conduct a rigorous public appointments process and, indeed, the process was scrutinised at all points by the adviser from the office of the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. The process produced only four appointable members; we therefore relied on the provision on vacancies in membership, pending a further appointment round.

Are you saying that the Auditor General’s report is incorrect?

The Auditor General has correctly quoted the provision in the act; I am simply seeking to explain the other provision that enabled us to proceed.

Do you accept the Auditor General’s report?

I accept the conclusions and the findings of her report. In particular, I accept that there was a need to strengthen the board and increase the number of members. Part of our learning from the process and from considering carefully the Auditor General’s findings is that we could have taken earlier steps to recruit additional board members.

I ask for a yes or no answer. Do you accept the Auditor General’s report and the criticism in paragraph 6 of that report?

It is important that I provide a qualification relating to the legal basis that the Scottish Government had for proceeding. I accept the report, subject to the necessary qualification that there was such a legal basis.

Your qualification effectively means that the Auditor General’s report is incorrect or incomplete.

It may be helpful if I clarify the position and reassure the committee. A full public appointments process was undertaken, as Paul Johnston has said, that set out to seek eight members for the board. The full process was followed. It is the only process that we have for recruiting members to public boards. An assessor from the commissioner’s office was part of that process and was assured that it was followed appropriately.

As Paul Johnston said, although it got a large number of responses and a number of people were interviewed, unfortunately that process resulted in only four people being identified as appointable. The Auditor General is right that our process identified only four members against the five that the 2016 act refers to. The action that we took in response to that was to check the legislation to ensure that the work of the board would continue to be valid with four members, and to place on the board an expert adviser with experience of community justice delivery. That was based on an assessment of the skills mix, including the skills that were required following the appointments process.

Based on what you say, I have to take it that you do not accept the content of the report.

No, I accept that it correctly reflects the legislation as it is and that we identified only four members. As Paul Johnstone said, however, we ensured that the actions of Community Justice Scotland would be valid under the law, even though it had only four members. We also ensured that there would be five people around the board table, in addition to the chair, by placing an expert adviser on the board, reflecting the necessary skills mix, as assessed with the chair.

What is the definition of “vacancy”?

To the best of my knowledge, the 2016 act does not specifically define “vacancy”. As I mentioned, we took advice on the matter and concluded that, in circumstances where we had sought to fill up to eight posts and had filled only four of them, we could proceed on the basis that there was a vacancy.

I would interpret a vacancy as being where someone who has served on a board steps down from the board. That creates a vacancy. A vacancy is not created because you cannot find the right number of people for the board. The word “vacancy” is misapplied here.

When the Auditor General did her section 22 report, did you explain your definition of “vacancy” to her staff, as you have explained it to the committee?

I am not sure whether we took the opportunity to explain it. That is a fair point. My colleague Neil Rennick may wish to say more on that.

We met Audit Scotland at an earlier stage. The discussion focused on the actions that we had taken to appoint new board members. At that stage, we were about to appoint the additional members to the board. The focus of the discussion was on the remedial actions that we had taken. I made the error of not advising Audit Scotland of the legal basis on which we had done that—it was not part of the discussion.

Given the report, that was a major error, was it not?

To clarify, the Government does not share the legal advice that it receives, but we followed the legal advice.

You do not share the legal advice, but surely you should have explained to the Auditor General that your interpretation of “vacancy” meant that the process was legal?

If there had been any question about whether the actions of Community Justice Scotland were not valid, I would have been happy to clarify that we had ensured that they were valid.

09:15  

Just to be clear, was it the case that, when the minister signed off the recruitment exercise for the board, the papers on that suggested that eight members be recruited and then the issue that you could not find eight appointable members who had the skill set that you were looking for?

That is correct. The original submission to ministers was on the basis that we would seek eight members, and that was the basis on which we advertised and sought to recruit members. However, the process identified only four members, and we do not have any other process with which to identify people. Consideration was given to whether we could delay starting the work of the board, but the existing community justice authorities were already winding down and staff were being recruited to Community Justice Scotland. Clearly, the organisation has an important role. We had to decide whether we could allow it to start with four board members. We tried to remedy the smaller number of members by adding an advisory member with significant experience of community justice. Our only other option would have been to delay the start of the organisation until a full appointment round could be progressed.

Did you then recommend to the minister that there should be a further round to try to recruit additional members and that that should be done reasonably quickly?

Yes. At the time, there was discussion of the right timescale for that. As we had just gone through a recruitment round that identified only four members, there was a question about whether another recruitment round on the same basis would identify more members. In dialogue with the chair, a decision was taken that it was best to allow the board a number of months to operate and assess its skills requirements and then run a further appointment round to bring the board up to full strength.

It would be helpful if the committee could get a copy of the relevant recommendations to ministers, in relation to the first and second rounds, so that we can see what actually happened.

Has any attempt been made to recruit to the board people who have been through the community justice system, or is it all people in suits?

In the initial recruitment round and in the second one there was a deliberate intention to recruit people with lived experience of the justice system. One member who was recruited initially has lived experience of the justice system through a family member.

But there are no people who have directly been through the system.

Such people certainly were not excluded. I cannot say whether any of the members—

That is not what I am asking about. Was any attempt made to recruit such people?

Yes. The criteria specifically sought people who had experience of going through the community justice system as someone accused of a crime.

Including the new recruits, is there anyone on the board who has direct experience of going through the community justice system?

That falls into the category of information that I would not be able to reveal. If I did—

Could you write to us and let us know?

I would not want to commit to release information that I am not sure I am able to release, but I will certainly check what I can reveal.

It is a simple question.

To be fair, I think that Mr Rennick is saying that he has to check whether he is allowed to give us those details and that, if he is allowed to, he will furnish us with them.

Yes.

Right—okay.

I want to give our witnesses an opportunity to give us a flavour of where the organisation is now. I am sure that we would all agree that it has made a bit of a shaky start, let us say. In terms of the audit principles that we are interested in and issues such as structures, governance and audit and risk, where is the organisation now? Are you confident that the organisation is up and running and is delivering what is needed for the period ahead?

The board has taken steps to engage actively with the auditors and take on board the recommendations that have been made. In particular, the board now has a full complement of members, with new members coming on board. My understanding is that, only yesterday, the board agreed that a deputy chair should be formally appointed, which is sensible in light of some of the learning from the audit report. The board has also strengthened committee structures, as the operation of the committees was one of the matters to which the Auditor General referred.

I would say that the full board has been operating with a high degree of effectiveness. Board minutes are published on the website, from which we can see that, although the board has taken time to get established, it has been dealing with the issues of planning, strategy, finance, people and risk, as we would expect of any board. The actions that the board has taken should serve to strengthen its governance. The Scottish Government and in particular the sponsor team will seek to support the board closely in the coming weeks and months so that the learning from the first audit is fully taken into account and helps to ensure that the organisation has strong governance foundations.

Have the problems with the number of board members and the chair had any impact on the overall delivery and planned roll-out of the service? Earlier, you talked about a robust and effective system of community justice across Scotland based on local planning and delivery by a wide range of partners. Surely there must have been some impact on your hopes for a clean roll-out of those objectives?

I note that Grant Thornton, the external auditors, in discussing the operation of the board, stated that, despite some challenges with the absence of a permanent chair,

“there did not appear to be a significant adverse impact on the Board decision making.”

The board has functioned, notwithstanding some of the challenges that it has experienced.

Even more important, at this 20-month point, we can point to some real successes of the organisation in seeking to deliver its core objectives, which I am sure is what members are particularly concerned about. The organisation has an important role in seeking to strengthen community justice across Scotland. When I have spoken to the chief executive and members of the board, I have been impressed by what I have learned about the details of what the organisation has been doing in its first 20 months of operation. I commend the staff and the board for their work in seeking to inform the public about community justice and the benefit of community alternatives. It is particularly striking that the second chancers campaign has now been viewed almost 6 million times, which is impressive for an organisation that is in its first 20 months of operation.

The organisation has also trained more than 1,200 community justice practitioners and engaged with all 32 local authorities in seeking to strengthen the provision of community justice at local authority level.

That is helpful.

I want to ask about the chairperson. There has been an interim chair and currently there is no chair. I understand that the advert for the chair went out yesterday. Might that have been prompted by today’s meeting? Can you explain the timescale, which seems rather odd?

I certainly can. There has been an acting chair for some time. My colleague Neil Rennick will be able to confirm when the acting chair was appointed. When it was recognised that the permanent chair was likely to be off for some time, the board agreed to put in place an acting chair, and she remains in place, so the board has a chair.

The permanent chair resigned in September 2018. Following that resignation, we have been working on the process for appointing a new permanent chair. As you will appreciate, it is important that that process is robust. We need to engage with the public appointments commissioner, assemble a panel and think carefully about the skills mix that we need. Work is in train to appoint a permanent chair. Of course, I am keen that that is done as quickly as possible, and the advertisement has gone live in recent days.

I understand that process, which is the normal run of things for Government. It just seems rather odd that the post was advertised yesterday, less than 24 hours before this meeting.

We took steps to ensure that the post was advertised as swiftly as possible. If the committee is happy to hear more, my colleague Donna MacKinnon can describe more about the process that we adopted and say how we have sought to accelerate it as much as possible.

The process is of less concern to me. I have some sympathy with your problems with governance, because it is important to get the right people on the board. However, over the months that I have chaired the committee, it has identified that leadership is absolutely key in driving forward any organisation. We have also identified problems with the criminal justice and community justice systems in Scotland. It seems to me rather worrying that the chair’s post was left vacant for so long only for it to be advertised less than 24 hours before this committee meets.

To be clear, the post was advertised not yesterday but at the beginning of last week. The guidelines on the timing have been completely in accordance with the code. We began the process for recruiting a new chair as soon as we heard about the resignation. We have taken steps to look at a skill set that attracts as much diversity among candidates as possible. We got an independent assessor and we had planning meetings prior to Christmas. There has been no delay whatsoever.

The public appointments team and, indeed, the independent assessor from the commissioner’s office have—as I have—prioritised the recruitment of this post.

That is good to know. Thank you for that clarification, Ms MacKinnon.

Good morning. The convener has just been talking about the importance of getting the right people on board and Donna MacKinnon was talking about skill sets.

In his opening statement, Mr Johnston mentioned that four new non-execs have been appointed. Now there is a move to build a skills matrix. Why has it been done that way round? Should a skills matrix not have been built and a skills review undertaken before you recruited the non-executive members?

To be clear, we have—at all points—been looking at the skills that are required for the board. At the outset, we prepared documentation on the skills that we needed for the board and we were very clear about the skills mix that we needed. At every recruitment point, we have set out the skills requirements quite clearly.

Neil Rennick may have more detail about that, if that would assist the committee.

I think that you are about to answer this question, Mr Rennick, but I want the matter to be absolutely clear for anyone who is watching. When you were looking to recruit the four new non-execs, did the Scottish Government do an analysis of the skills gaps that were already there?

Yes. Before the original recruitment of the initial board members, a skills matrix was prepared in dialogue with the previous chair. Ahead of the more recent recruitment round, and in the absence of the chair, there was a discussion with the whole board about the skills requirements for the recruitment process. That fed into the recruitment of the members.

Once a recruitment round has happened, it is good practice as part of succession planning and the planning of the board to undertake a further assessment of the skills on the board—once you have the people in place, you assess who you have, what their skills are and whether there are any gaps.

The analysis happened before and after the recruitment round, in line with good practice.

Will you give the committee some idea of the board’s make-up in terms of its skills and diversity? The Auditor General’s report highlights concerns about whether there was

“sufficient experience in relation to finance, governance and risk management”.

What is the current situation? Are you comfortable that those three areas have been addressed?

Yes, we are comfortable that the board has a sufficient mix of skills, although we will go on to talk about some further activity that is being taken.

The original four board members who were identified included people with extensive experience of public body and third sector boards—one was the chair of an audit committee of another public body board—and experience of business and the criminal justice system.

When the skills analysis was undertaken after the previous recruitment round, the main gap that was identified was direct experience of delivery in the community justice system. The response to that was to place an adviser on the board—initially, the adviser was a senior female social worker; more recently, the adviser is a senior former sheriff.

The four new board members include people with a mix of experience across the community justice system and across the justice system in other areas. One is a former prison governor and also chair of the Scottish Association for the Study of Offending. Others have experience in research, or in working with vulnerable young people or in the third sector. Therefore, they have a mix of experience in finance and audit and also direct experience of the community justice system.

09:30  

As part of its arrangements now that the eight board members plus the adviser are in place, the board has been looking at its skills requirements. Along with internal and external audit, arrangements have been made to provide additional training—for example, on audit and risk. That process is on-going.

That might answer my next question. You have said that the recruitment has been done, the board is full and you are now preparing a skills matrix. What will happen if you identify specific gaps that lead you to say, “Wouldn’t it be great if we had someone like this?” What will you do then?

We are content that people with the right mix of skills are on the board. However, as any board should do, it should constantly review the skills and experience that its members have and respond to that by undertaking additional training. That is happening on the board.

My final question has a slightly different focus. Community Justice Scotland is part of the Scottish Government’s strategy to shift the balance from custodial sentencing towards community sentencing. Willie Coffey’s earlier question described it as having had something of a shaky start. We also know that the Scottish Government has plans to bring in a presumption to push the community justice system towards community sentencing. Paul Johnston, are you confident that, if that happens, Community Justice Scotland will be ready for it? Will it have sufficient resource, capability and capacity if the Scottish Government forces that change?

We are absolutely clear that community sentences are often more effective than short prison sentences in reducing reoffending. As you say—

Surely we have to have a legitimate alternative.

I agree that Community Justice Scotland needs to be properly resourced to do its job. Of course, we continue to have regular discussions with the organisation about its resourcing. However, let us be clear that it is not the main deliverer of community justice sentences, because alternatives to custody are delivered locally. Its role is largely as an improvement body. It works with local providers of community justice, with much of that work being financed through our partners in local government. It seeks to support improvement in services and the consistency of service delivery across Scotland. Therefore, it has a vital role, which it undertakes not alone but with partners in local government and a wide range of other areas, such as the Scottish Prison Service, Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and many others, including third sector and voluntary organisations

So, in brief, you are comfortable that Community Justice Scotland is ready for this shift.

I think that Community Justice Scotland is already delivering on its agenda. However, its first annual report, which is currently out for consultation, shows that, when we look across Scotland, a lot of work remains to be done on improving the availability and consistency of community sentences. I would not wish to sound complacent in any way. In Scotland we have a big challenge ahead of us to ensure the widespread and more consistent availability of community alternatives, given what the evidence states about the effectiveness of such sentences.

Good morning. In December 2018, the Auditor General told us that the accountable officer intended to appoint someone to strengthen the financial team. Have you appointed that person?

I think that that was a reference to Community Justice Scotland’s work on strengthening its finances, which its chief executive has been progressing. Karyn McCluskey is the accountable officer of Community Justice Scotland. My colleagues who are here today have been in very regular contact with it to ensure that the financial capability that it needs is in place. My colleague Neil Rennick may be able to provide an update on the latest position with regard to that support.

I confirm that Community Justice Scotland has been receiving shared service support from our finance colleagues and, more informally, from our accountancy colleagues. There has been further dialogue about getting additional support, and we, as the sponsor directorate, have agreed extra resource to help with that. Initially, there is a consideration of bringing in someone external; beyond that, there is a possibility that there will be a secondment from the Scottish Government to help with the work. There is active progress on that work.

There is also dialogue with internal audit about undertaking a review of governance and finance, and the outcome will feed into further dialogue to identify skills gaps and how they can be strengthened.

Does that mean no?

It means yes; the necessary skills are in place, but we are looking to further strengthen them.

The conclusion from the evidence session was that you needed an accountant in the organisation.

Yes.

That should not be too hard to do.

No, and it is being put in place for the relevant timescale that is required.

We have spoken about it taking from September to January to put out an advert for a board member. How long does it take to appoint an accountant in an organisation?

We will make sure that that is in place for the current accounting period. We are working on the basis that the resource will be in place when it is required.

I do not understand. If an accountant is needed, one is appointed. What are you talking about?

We have made resource available, and the organisation is going through the process of having that person put in place.

Therefore, will that be an external appointment?

In the immediate term, the proposal is that someone will be brought in on a contract basis, then there will be a more permanent arrangement.

From what was said earlier, it seems to take an awful long time to appoint someone. This is not at director level; this is a working accountant who just needs to get on with doing the books.

The appointment is sitting with the chief executive, who is moving forward with it.

I thank colleagues on the committee for welcoming the cuckoo in the nest this morning.

I will follow on from the questions of Willie Coffey and Liam Kerr. Scotland has an incarceration rate of 140 per 100,000 population, which is a third higher than many comparable Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and a third higher than it was 20 years ago.

I agree about the strategic importance of the work of Community Justice Scotland. However, is it fair to say that there will be a step change in what we ask it to do with the introduction of commissioning by Community Justice Scotland? Given the concerns here, is the board and, more importantly, Community Justice Scotland more widely, ready to take on that role?

I do not dispute what you have said about our incarceration rate and the need to make real progress and step up the availability of community alternatives. My colleague Donna MacKinnon might say a bit more about the priorities that Community Justice Scotland is pursuing. We can have confidence that the steps that have been taken to strengthen the organisation’s governance, oversight and finance will stand it in good stead for the challenges that lie ahead. I agree that it is important that the organisation is in fine health to take on the challenges that we face.

As Paul Johnston has said, a key priority for Community Justice Scotland will be to adopt a strategic commissioning framework. It is doing that in conjunction with local areas and is doing a lot of consultation to maximise resources locally and to get people working in partnership for better outcomes.

Another priority will involve alternatives to prosecution, which we touched on earlier. A large part of the ground work has been done through Karyn McCluskey’s championing of it up and down the country, to get people in line with policy directives such as the presumption against short sentences—PASS—and with the Management of Offenders (Scotland) Bill. Communications engagement up and down the country will help in the future with regard to commissioning and strengthening the evidence on alternatives to prosecution.

Paul Johnston has set out some successes, which I do not dispute, but do you acknowledge that the commissioning role will be a major step change in what Community Justice Scotland is being asked to do?

It is an important aspect of its role, but it is important to emphasise that Community Justice Scotland will not be the direct provider of community justice sentences. That is not the intention. Rather, Community Justice Scotland will support local partnerships with the commissioning of those services. I would see it as an evolution of its role and part of ensuring the better, more effective and more consistent availability of community sentences across Scotland. It is important that we do not think that the organisation has changed from its current size and is about to become a massive provider of community justice disposals across Scotland. That is not the case. It will simply seek to support the local providers.

Will you clarify that point? It is either commissioning services or it is not—commissioning does not imply provision, but it does imply looking at providers and what would be delivered and deciding whether to give the money. That is substantially different from the work that Community Justice Scotland is currently carrying out.

My understanding is that Community Justice Scotland is working on a framework for commissioning, to enable local commissioning to take place. Donna MacKinnon may have more to say on that subject.

There is a long lead-in time for what the organisation is now tasked with, and we are helping with the transition from the Scottish Government to Community Justice Scotland. A crucial part of that transition, as Paul Johnston has indicated, is the creation of a commissioning framework—in essence, a good practice guide. That is an important first step. After that, we have given Community Justice Scotland extra resources to enable it to undertake commissioning. However, there is a long lead-in time—we have not just given commissioning to it in its first year of operation.

My final question relates to the board’s success and its strategic priorities. I am a member of the Justice Committee, which heard both from third sector organisations and from sentencers themselves that there is a great deal of confusion about what is available in community sentencing. As long as that remains the case, and as long as sentencers are not confident that they know what is available to them, there will be a significant problem in getting the sea change in sentencing to take place.

Do you agree that that is a key strategic priority? Do you believe that Community Justice Scotland is equipped for and is making progress towards increasing sentencers’ awareness and understanding?

I agree that it is a key priority for Community Justice Scotland to support the more effective and consistent availability of community sentences. Through the first report, which is now out for consultation, it has already given us a clearer picture than we had previously of what the country looks like in terms of the local availability of community sentences. That is a first step towards identifying priorities for improvement, and that is at the heart of its role.

If members have no further questions, I will ask a final one. Mr Johnston, you will have seen that the Parliament believes strongly in having a gender balance on its committees and bodies. What is the current gender balance on the board?

At present, the board has six men and two women and is therefore clearly not yet meeting the aspirations that we have for gender balance. It is a Government priority to achieve a gender balance in all our public bodies, and it is a matter that I wish to raise with the new chair—immediately on their appointment—to ensure that there is a focus on developing a gender balance and greater diversity generally as the board takes its work forward.

There will be at least two further opportunities for people to join the board of Community Justice Scotland in advance of the date when the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 comes into force. There are opportunities, but the issue needs to be a real focus of attention, because we know that diverse boards are likely to be much more effective boards.

Thank you, Mr Johnston. I thank the witnesses for their evidence this morning.

Before I suspend the meeting, I welcome to the public gallery the Honourable Maxovonno Thomas and colleagues from the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Assembly of the Turks and Caicos Islands.

09:44 Meeting suspended.  

09:48 On resuming—