We move on to stage 2 of the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill. We will start where we left off last week, at section 9. Our intention is to conclude stage 2 today.
Members should have a copy of the bill, the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. I welcome Paul Wheelhouse, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, and his officials—
Good morning.
That was lovely of you to wish a good morning to everybody. I was not ready for that. Are you all ready to begin? Do you all have your papers out?
Section 9—Corporate plan
Amendment 29, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 30, 31, 31A, 32 to 37, 40 to 42, 98, 47, 51, 55, 56, 58, 59 and 63. If amendment 91, in the group on the ability of community justice Scotland to develop and arrange services, is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 56 in this group, as it will have been pre-empted.
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.
Thank you very much, minister.
Amendment 31A seeks to amend amendment 31 by adding a reference to
“victims of offences and their families”
to ensure that victims and their families are given a higher profile in the bill by explicitly recognising them. As it stands, amendment 31’s proposed new paragraph (1)(b)(ii) is too vague. It refers to
“other persons who are or may be affected by community justice”.
That is not an overly clear statement. My small amendment would ensure that there is no doubt about the importance of victims and their families being involved and represented in the engagement and consultation process. In effect, it would ensure that victims are taken into consideration in the bill—something that was promised by the Scottish Government but has not, in my view, been delivered.
With the expansion of the definition of community justice to include those who are suspected of a crime and given bail, as well as others who were not previously included, it is particularly important that confusion about victims’ rights in engagement and consultation be kept to a minimum. To make sure that the process is as simple as possible for victims, I suggest that victims should have the same rights and be treated in a consistent manner, regardless of how the offender is treated.
Therefore, I suggest that the main principles of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 be set as standard principles throughout both criminal and community justice. Although there are differences between that piece of legislation and the current bill, they are not easily identifiable by victims.
Amendment 31A is supported by Scottish Women’s Aid and Victim Support Scotland, which specifically requested this inclusion. It is very similar to my amendment 95, which was supported by the committee last week. However, I welcome the minister’s comments this morning and his offer to work with me to come to a compromise on the wording, so I will not move amendment 31A today, although I might move such an amendment at stage 3.
Amendment 98 is designed to ensure that community justice partners report to community justice Scotland on how they have engaged with and consulted third sector bodies in the preparation and development of the community justice outcomes improvement plan.
The bill states that statutory partners must consider which third sector bodies that are involved in community justice
“are likely to be able to contribute to the preparation of the plan”
for their area, and that they must
“make all reasonable efforts to secure the participation of such bodies in the preparation of the plan”.
Where a third sector body that is involved in community justice
“wishes to participate in the preparation of the plan to any extent,”
the statutory partners will be required to
“take such steps as are reasonable to enable the third sector body to participate to that extent.”
All that is to be welcomed. However, my amendment 98 would go further by putting in place a reporting mechanism to ensure that community justice partners can be held to account by the national body on how they have carried out those duties.
Experience shows that it can be difficult for statutory partners to engage with third sector bodies at local level due to the nature and diversity of the sector. Similarly, many current planning processes are often out of reach for some third sector organisations—particularly the smaller ones. My amendment 98 would make sure that if there were to be problems or issues with statutory partners engaging with and consulting third sector bodies, the problems would be reported on and addressed through appropriate means.
Amendment 98 complements the Scottish Government’s amendment 53 on local improvement recommendations, which states that
“Community justice partners to whom a local improvement recommendation has been made must comply with any direction issued by Community Justice Scotland”.
My amendment specifies that community justice partners must report to community justice Scotland on how they have engaged with third sector bodies in preparation of the plan. If partners have not complied with the consulting and engagement duties in the bill, or have found difficulties in doing so, community justice Scotland would make an improvement recommendation with which partners must comply.
Amendment 98 is supported by the criminal justice voluntary sector forum, which includes Apex Scotland, Barnardo’s Scotland, Circle Scotland, Cornerstone, Cyrenians, Families Outside, Sacro, Positive Prison? Positive Futures, Women’s Aid and Victim Support Scotland.
However, as with my earlier amendment 31A, I welcome the minister’s willingness to discuss how we can come to an arrangement and agreement on the wording of an amendment, so I will not push my moment—my motion, rather—at this time.
I am waiting for you to push your moment.
I will not push my motion at this time.
Does any other member wish to come in?
I warmly welcome the amendments from the minister in this group. They go a long way towards meeting some of the concerns that we heard during evidence taking, from the third sector in particular, and they will strengthen the bill significantly. I am grateful for that.
I think that the intention behind Margaret Mitchell’s—Margaret McDougall’s—amendments is well understood—
I think that we all need to take deep breaths this morning.
I support that intention and think that the issue can be resolved.
I, too, welcome the inclusion of the third sector on the face of the bill. Everybody here, including the minister, knows that the third sector is at the core of delivering help to those who have offended or are on the verge of offending. I very much welcome that recognition being in the bill. I also thank the minister for listening to Margaret McDougall. I am glad that they hope to co-operate and come to an arrangement because I, too, think that Margaret McDougall’s amendments are important.
10:15
I concur with all that has been said. I hope that the minister can work with Margaret McDougall because I think that it is important that victims and their families be mentioned specifically in the bill.
I, too, welcome the continued dialogue between Margaret McDougall and the minister on the issues with—I hope—a view to resolving them at stage 3.
I was not very keen to have the matter on the face of the bill. The only thing that I ask is for the minister to consider what I said previously about private sector involvement. I am not saying that it should be included in the bill, but I would be thankful if he could recognise the contribution of the private sector.
I thank members for their considered points—especially Margaret McDougall for showing such willingness to work with me. I am keen to deliver on the clear sentiment expressed by her and the committee to reflect on the importance of the third sector. Margaret McDougall’s amendment 31A on victims and their families makes an important point and I am happy to work with her to get the wording right. I hope that we can all go forward with consensus on the issue.
I will certainly also look at the point that Mr Allard made. I recognise the importance of the private sector, particularly in relation to providing employment opportunities for the people who are within the community justice system. That is important and we will reflect on how we can address it.
Amendment 29 agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Section 10—Annual reports on exercise of functions
Amendment 70, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendments 71, 87 and 92.
As I said last week, the amendments in my name were originally proposed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I have lodged them in order to at least have some discussion around the issues that COSLA wants to raise and which it still feels are a matter of anxiety for local government.
COSLA is concerned that local government must be involved in the national assurance process. It welcomes the minister’s acceptance of the principle of establishing a joint arrangement involving local government and potentially other partners, but believes that it should be on the face of the bill.
Amendments 70 and 71 require that a copy of community justice Scotland’s annual report be sent to each local authority. Amendments 87 and 92 ensure that local government will be involved in the national assurance process and put the commitment made by the Scottish Government on the face of the bill.
The support of local government and its governing elected members is fundamental to the success of the future model for community justice. Local government is also the key agency with responsibility for the delivery of community justice services. To that end, local government must be involved in the national assurance process.
As a partner in the delivery of the national community justice strategy and its associated outcomes framework, local government has an important role to play in national oversight alongside Scottish ministers. COSLA believes that the Scottish Government and local government should be jointly engaged in the assurance process that community justice Scotland will facilitate by learning, negotiating, changing and leading on what is needed.
The minister has accepted the principle of establishing a joint arrangements committee involving local government—and potentially other partners—and Scottish ministers to oversee the delivery of the national outcomes and the strategy and that has been welcomed. COSLA also believes that that can be reliably established as a lasting arrangement only if it appears on the face of the bill. The minister may not agree with that sentiment, but he may be able to give some sort of assurance if it is not on the face of the bill to ensure that COSLA feels fully engaged in the process and in national assurance.
The Justice Committee’s stage 1 report indicated that there would be value in involving local councillors in the national body but that
“it would be impossible to find a local elected member who could represent all areas”.
COSLA believes that the amendment would address those issues by agreeing an arrangement that would allow local government to present itself as a coherent voice.
The amendments would bring together ministers and representatives of local government to oversee delivery against the national strategy and the performance framework. If they are accepted, COSLA will continue discussions with the minister on how the arrangement should take form. In fact, I hope that COSLA will continue discussions even if the amendments are not accepted.
Amendment 87 requires ministers to meet representatives of local authorities and other persons to consider the community justice Scotland annual report and the assessment that it has made of the performance related to achieving nationally determined outcomes.
Amendment 92 requires community justice Scotland to report to ministers, each local authority and others on its strategy for innovation, learning and development. The frequency of such meetings is not prescribed.
I move amendment 70.
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.
Amendment 72, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendments 93 and 99.
If these amendments were agreed to, a number of consequential amendments would be required. It did not seem to me to be a good use of the committee’s time or, indeed, the legislation team’s time to go through every single one of those when the amendments might not be agreed to in the first place. Obviously, there will be a job of work to be done if they are agreed to.
Again, the suggestions are from COSLA. The amendments look at what sort of partnership the community justice partners would be involved in.
Amendment 72 would insert into the bill a new section that would place a duty on community partners to establish a Iocal community justice partnership and would place local partnerships in a community planning context.
Amendment 93 would require all community justice partners to co-operate at both the local and the national level, and would require that to be demonstrated. Local community justice partnerships must have a robust footing so that partners can be properly held to account for community justice services at a local level. In COSLA’s opinion, the bill does not offer that and there is no obligation for a partnership even to be established.
COSLA’s proposed solution is a specific amendment to the bill that requires local community justice partnerships to be formally established and to have a clear relationship with local community planning arrangements. The bill would also be amended to ensure that the duty on partners to co-operate must be demonstrated at a local level. That would allow community justice partners to be locally accountable, with locally elected members playing a key role, and would achieve a balance between protecting local flexibility and ensuring that partnerships are placed on a robust footing. That would make it more likely that individual partners would take the matter seriously and be willing to pool resources, and less likely that community justice could be seen as a discretionary area of activity.
For those who have been involved in the journey of the redesign of community justice, it is assumed that community justice partnerships will be established along local authority lines or, in some cases, across local authority boundaries. Amendment 72 would ensure that partnerships are established on a legal footing.
10:30Amendment 72 would also place partnerships in a community planning context, which was the original intention of the redesign and was a concern of the Justice Committee at stage 1. The cabinet secretary said in 2014:
“The new model is designed to harness this commitment and passion as much as possible by encouraging a collaborative approach to local service delivery through Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs).”
There must be adequate resourcing of the partnership arrangements to ensure that community justice partners are effective. COSLA has a commitment from the Scottish Government that conversations will take place in that regard.
The intention is not for amendment 72 to preclude partnerships being formed across local authority boundaries.
COSLA welcomed the proposals in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 to improve community planning by requiring all statutory partners to participate equally and fully in the process, and thought that the bill should replicate that approach. Amendment 93, which would amend section 30, would guard against a national partner being able to discharge its duty to co-operate simply through its activity at national level, by requiring each statutory partner to demonstrate its commitment at local partnership level.
At stage 1 the committee considered the idea of appointing a lead partner, which was rejected, for understandable reasons. The provision in amendment 72 for local partners to appoint a chair would go some way towards resolving the issue. In its report, “Reducing reoffending in Scotland”, Audit Scotland asked for
“clear accountability and a mechanism to promote collective responsibility for reducing reoffending”.
A duty to form a partnership, with a chair who is ultimately accountable to the community, is one way of providing that.
I move amendment 72.
Over the past few years, we have heard a lot about the cluttered landscape in the community justice sector. The bill’s intention is to bring greater clarity about the responsibilities of different partners.
However, during evidence taking, scepticism was expressed about whether the bill does enough to declutter complex arrangements. Dame Elish Angiolini told us:
“there is still the capacity for that to persist”,
and Mark Roberts, from Audit Scotland, highlighted the complexity of the landscape and said:
“Although we think that some of the proposals will potentially improve those arrangements, complexities in the system might remain.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 1 September 2015; c 2.]
The committee said in its stage 1 report:
“On the basis of the evidence received, the Committee has some doubts as to whether the Bill will de-clutter the complex community justice landscape ... we consider that more can be done to simplify the arrangements by setting out clear roles and responsibilities for those involved, thereby supporting relevant bodies to interact effectively.”
I acknowledge that some of the amendments in the name of the minister that we considered this morning are helpful in that regard, in particular in relation to third sector involvement. However, there is scope to clarify the relationship between CJPs and CPPs, given that there has been debate about their interrelationship.
Some people suggested that there should be a lead partner, but others argued that that would result in other partners leaving the lead partner to it.
Amendment 99 would introduce a requirement for community justice partners from a single area to co-operate with the relevant community planning partnership for the area. The amendment seeks to balance the different positions of COSLA and the Scottish Government, by putting such co-operation on a statutory footing and placing a duty to co-operate on each community justice partner.
Elaine Murray’s amendments 72 and 93 and my amendment 99 attempt to address the same issue in a different way. I will listen carefully to the minister’s response to all the amendments in the group.
I understand that people are reticent about change, but I wonder whether, behind this group of amendments and indeed the previous group, there is a sense of vulnerability on the part of local authorities that does not need to be there. The Christie commission on the future delivery of public services was all about collaborative working and sharing experience, and I would be disappointed if we thought that we needed to set that out in the bill.
Amendment 72, in the name of Elaine Murray, relates to the creation and operation of an alternative construct to the one that is set out in the bill—that is, community justice partners acting jointly—which would be called a “local community justice partnership”. A local community justice partnership would be required to plan and report, under provisions that are similar to those in the bill. Amendment 72 would also assign a role to the Scottish ministers in making further provision about the constitution and governance arrangements of local community justice partnerships, including the appointment of a person to chair meetings and act as a primary contact in relation to community justice Scotland.
Although I understand that it is well meant, I cannot support amendment 72, for two reasons. First, it would have an unintended consequence that the committee should be aware of. The proposed new section would not amend the duty to prepare a community justice improvement plan in section 17, which means that two community justice outcomes improvement plans would be required. One would have to be prepared by the community justice partners under section 17 and another plan would have to be prepared by the community justice partnership established by those partners under the proposed new section. Indeed, there would be several instances of duplication of duties and requirements. Dr Murray indicated that consequential amendments would be needed, and she is quite correct. Presumably that duplication is not what Dr Murray intended, but it would be the effect of amendment 72.
Secondly, and more importantly, the bill already has adequate governance arrangements in place and allows for the input of a broad range of relevant organisations by encouraging consultation and collaboration between community justice partners, the third sector and anyone else who is considered to be appropriate. It has always been the intention that the planning, delivery and reporting of community justice would integrate as far as possible with community planning. Further details on that will be given in guidance.
The committee should also be aware of the following difficulties that I believe amendment 72 would create. It is not clear whether the local community justice partnership would be an entity in its own right. It is not clear whether a local community justice partner could choose not to join the partnership. It is not clear what the relationship would be between the community justice partnership and the individual community justice partners—would the community justice partnership have any authority over the community justice partners?
Another area of concern is that the amendment would give ministers a regulation-making power that would allow them to make provision for the constitution and governance arrangements of the proposed community justice partnerships. Let me be clear: I firmly believe that decisions on how local community justice partners assign roles to ensure that they carry out their duties effectively is a matter for them. Indeed, in its stage 1 report, the committee was wary of a lead partner being appointed and it did not believe that there should be a specific requirement in the bill to that effect. The bill is deliberately not prescriptive on the matter. Instead, it allows for local discretion and flexibility in such arrangements so that the responsibility for achieving improved outcomes for community justice is both collective and individual. Amendment 72 would remove that local discretion. Requiring governance arrangements to be set out in regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure is a measure that is not free of difficulties. It would take up valuable parliamentary time and Government resources, which I do not think could be justified.
In summary, amendment 72 would add another layer to the community justice landscape that the bill establishes. Alison McInnes referred to the “cluttered landscape”, as did the stage 1 report. Amendment 72 would make the landscape more rather than less cluttered. It would compromise local flexibility and the way it is drafted does not work, although I note that Dr Murray has suggested that consequential amendments would be needed as a result of it. I invite Dr Murray not to move amendment 72.
Dr Murray’s amendment 93 would amend section 30 to require each community justice partner for the area of a local authority to demonstrate co-operation with every other community justice partner for that area. I want to be clear that I understand and do not disagree with the intention behind the amendment, but there are some issues with it. I will ask Dr Murray to work with me, if she is willing to do so, with a view to her lodging an amendment at stage 3.
Co-operation and collective responsibility are, of course, cornerstones of the new model for community justice. I take Mr Finnie’s point that we hoped that we would not have to put that on the face of the bill, but if doing so would give people additional confidence I am willing to look at it. Section 30 in its current form places a duty on each community justice partner and community justice Scotland to work with each other in exercising their functions in relation to community justice. I want to make it very clear that I expect co-operation between community justice partners to be evident through both the community justice outcomes improvement plans and the annual reports on progress against them.
When I reviewed the provisions in the bill I recognised that the existing reporting arrangements under section 20 did not in fact require community justice partners to state how they had arrived at their outcomes. That is why I lodged amendment 45, which was debated in group 2, to require community justice partners to describe the activities that they undertook to achieve the outcomes, in order to provide greater transparency over what they did, how they did it and who was involved.
There is a clear read-across between Dr Murray’s amendment 93 and my amendment 45. I believe that amendment 45 would provide the evidence of co-operation that is being sought by amendment 93. However, I accept that there may be room for an additional provision in the bill on the requirement to demonstrate that evidence. Any such amendment needs to be clearer and more precise on what demonstrating such co-operation involves. It is not clear whether there should be an obligation to publish a report or whether the bill should specify how often such a report should be published; how such co-operation is to be evidenced; or whether the obligation is on community justice partners individually or collectively.
If Dr Murray agrees not to move amendment 93, I will have further discussions with her to propose a suitable amendment at stage 3. I invite Elaine Murray not to move amendment 93.
I will now speak to amendment 99, lodged by Alison McInnes, which inserts a new duty of co-operation on the community justice partners when they are carrying out their functions with the community planning partnership for their area. I recognise the sentiment behind the amendment, as eloquently expressed by Alison McInnes. However, I have a number of concerns about the amendment—both with the principle of what is being proposed and with the detail.
I acknowledge that there is an important relationship between the community justice partners and the community planning partnerships. As Alison McInnes mentioned, the third sector is now very much part of that mix. Six of the eight community justice partners are indeed existing community planning partners and, in practice, there will be important links between them. They share ambitions of joint working to improve outcomes, prevent harm and tackle inequalities, and I envisage a considerable amount of overlap. The transition work that we are pursuing with community planning partners and community justice partners will help them to consider the sort of relationship that they want and to build that relationship. We will further cement that important relationship in guidance.
Amendment 99 does not work. The duty to co-operate is placed only on the community justice partners. There is no reciprocal duty on the community planning partnership to co-operate in return. In addition, there is no such legal entity as a “community planning partnership”, so the duties would have to be placed on the individual community planning partners.
A number of community planning partners have no functions relevant to community justice, for example Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, yet community justice partners would have to be able to demonstrate that, in carrying out their functions in relation to community justice, they had co-operated with all those bodies. Those bodies that do have a direct interest in community justice are already community justice partners, so amendment 99 in effect requires the community justice partners to co-operate with themselves.
If amendment 99 were to be agreed by the committee, it would, in my view, be unworkable in view of the problems that I have just described—although I sympathise with the sentiment behind the amendment. It is not in the interests of the Parliament for the amendment to be passed as it is. I hope that Alison McInnes feels able to recognise that amendment 99 is not necessary in policy terms and that it may give rise to difficulties in practical terms. I therefore ask her not to move that amendment.
I will simply wind up the debate formally. I will not press amendment 72—I seek leave to withdraw it.
Amendment 72, by agreement, withdrawn.
I have asked for a second time—it will now be a third time, in fact—for the window to be closed, but that has not yet happened. If you, minister, and anybody else are feeling the cold, it is not the fault of the committee. Now that I have put it on the record, let us see whether anybody in facilities management is listening. For the third and last time of asking, please have the window closed and the gale excluded from this committee meeting.
Section 13—National strategy in relation to community justice
Amendment 97, in the name of Alison McInnes, is grouped with amendments 73 and 75. If amendment 74 in the group headed “Outcomes and performance in relation to community justice” is agreed to, amendment 75 will be pre-empted.
The group of amendments relates to issues that I believe should be addressed in the national strategy and performance framework. My amendment 97 would allow the national strategy to contain information and statistics on action taken in relation to early intervention to prevent offending, diversion from prosecution and youth offending, which would inform the national strategy. That goes hand in hand with the amendments that we agreed to last week on the scope of community justice.
Last week, we agreed to amendments that expanded the definition of community justice to make it explicit that crucial services such as the provision of appropriate housing are an integral part of community justice. To complement my amendments from last week, amendments 73 and 75 recognise the crucial importance of safe and appropriate housing in reducing further offending. The amendments would add the requirement for housing to be included in the national strategy and when the national performance framework is drawn up.
I continue to consider housing to be of such importance that it should be part of any local or national strategy to prevent further offending. I was grateful for the comments that fellow committee members made last week.
I will press my amendment 97.
You should move it at this point.
I am sorry—I move amendment 97.
That is all right—it is just the cold getting to you.
I support amendment 97 because it complements what we decided last week. The lack of statistics for analysing problems in order to see their extent has dogged the Parliament since it was created in 1999. I am supportive of including this aspect in the national strategy. Like Alison McInnes, I cannot emphasise enough how important housing is to tackling reoffending. We must ensure that that is foremost in everyone’s minds.
10:45
I thank Alison McInnes for lodging amendments 97 and 73, and I understand the positive intention that is behind them. However, both amendments would require Scottish ministers to act in a presumptive manner with regard to the preparation of the national strategy for community justice, which would undermine the collaborative process in drafting that important document. I therefore ask Alison McInnes not to press amendment 97 and not to move amendment 73.
I will explain my reasons for that. Those amendments seek to amend section 13 to insert information on early intervention, diversion from prosecution, youth offending and access to housing into the existing list of the material that Scottish ministers may consider appropriate for inclusion in the national strategy for community justice. I shall speak to each of those four important issues in turn.
As I stated in my opening speech in the stage 1 debate, the drive in community justice to reduce reoffending is part of our wider approach to promoting social justice and tackling inequality, which includes action to improve early years experiences, raise educational attainment for all and continue to promote the whole-system approach to youth justice. The new national strategy for community justice is being developed in collaboration with a broad range of partners and stakeholders and it would be premature for me to guarantee which topics will be prioritised in the strategy now and for ever more, as to do so would pre-empt the collaborative process. However, I am clear that the community justice national strategy will link with the other strategies to ensure a joined-up approach.
Given that I proposed through my amendments in groups 1 and 2 to broaden the definition in section 1 to reference more strongly intervention at an earlier stage, prevention and diversion from prosecution, I suggest to Alison McInnes that we can—and it would be right to—rely on that broader definition to ensure that such matters are reflected in the national strategy. Youth justice has its own strategy—“Preventing offending: getting it right for children and young people”—and the community justice strategy will naturally link to that strategy. Amendment 97 is unnecessary and I urge Alison McInnes not to press it. However, I note other committee members’ sentiments about it.
Turning to amendment 73, I fully recognise that suitable housing and support to sustain a tenancy are vital to providing stability to people with a history of offending and to helping them desist from committing further offences. As members are aware, there has been a great deal of engagement over recent months with stakeholders, including housing stakeholders, on the development of the national strategy. One of the strategy’s four themes is access to services, which is intended to cover a range of services—including housing, welfare and health—that evidence shows are key to reducing reoffending. In the material on that theme, the national strategy steering group will outline its suggestions for improving housing outcomes for those in the criminal justice system. That will build on the thoughts and ideas that have been gathered at the national events and on the recommendations of the ministerial group on offender reintegration, of which the Minister for Housing and Welfare is a member.
I confirm that housing will feature in the national strategy that is being drafted, and I do not foresee any scenario in which a Scottish minister would not include housing in the national strategy. However, housing is not the only support service that has an impact on the likelihood of reoffending. Access to healthcare, welfare and employment assistance is also important, and I would expect that to feature in the national strategy.
If the committee agreed to amendment 73, we would create a risk by singling out only one of those important services for inclusion in the bill. That could lead to housing being prioritised to the detriment of all the other equally important services, which would not be desirable. For those reasons, I ask Alison McInnes to agree not to move her amendment 73, given that I have confirmed that housing will feature in the national strategy.
Amendment 75, lodged by Alison McInnes, seeks to ensure that one of the other indicators that are provided for under section 15(3) would relate to
“access to and use of housing services”.
Indicators are the means by which the community justice partners will measure whether community justice outcomes are being achieved. The suite of indicators that will apply is being developed with stakeholders and, again, I do not want to pre-empt that process.
The words “other indicators” are specifically provided to allow flexibility should additional indicators that are not anticipated be required in the future. If an additional indicator were required for housing, the bill would allow for that without specifying it. Keeping the other indicators unspecified maximises flexibility for any future changes and does not favour any aspect of community justice over another.
I fully recognise the importance of housing in supporting desistance. I agree with Alison McInnes and Margaret Mitchell that housing is very important to preventing reoffending, which is why we have been developing a housing-related outcome with stakeholders. As I have just said, no other form of support service is being specifically provided for in that way, and I do not believe that it would be constructive to do that for one service area. I again ask Alison McInnes not to move her amendments 73 and 75. If they are moved, I urge the committee not to agree to them.
John Finnie wanted to come in before the minister, but I missed him, because I was so distracted by the gale-force winds. By the way, an engineer is going to come up to try to fix the window that is open. When they come up, I will suspend the meeting. Believe it or not, that is the only way in which the window can be closed, and it takes five minutes. What a design.
Is John Finnie’s point about the wind or is it about an amendment?
I will spare you any comments about wind, convener.
I speak in support of my colleague Alison McInnes’s amendments—particularly amendment 97. The minister talked about a desire not to behave in a presumptive manner. However, let us be specific about what is being asked for. It is
“information about the action that the ... Ministers are taking, or propose to take, or consider that others should take”.
What is that about? It is action in relation to
“early intervention to prevent offending ... diversion from prosecution”
and
“youth offending,
which supports, or co-ordinates with, the achievement of those aims.”
We are always lobbied to place various elements in bills and people give various weights to the overall legislation on the basis of the references that are made, but there is no difficulty with that at all.
Likewise, there is an argument about not singling out housing—I might appear to be arguing against myself here; I see colleagues nodding—but the one thing that we all share is that we all have to stay somewhere. We might or might not require some of the other services at any given time, but we all require housing. That is what makes it unique. I therefore support the amendments on that basis.
Minister, do you want to come back in, given that I let you wind up before John Finnie spoke? If you do not want to, it is not necessary.
I am happy to waive my right to reply.
I will press amendment 97 and move the others in the group. I listened carefully to the minister, who said that amendment 97 is unnecessary, but one of the recurring themes that the committee has dealt with over and over is that services are patchy and early intervention would make a difference. Although he said that amendment 97 is unnecessary, he did not say that it is unworkable. On many occasions, we use the statute book to emphasise the need for a particular course of action, so it is sensible to ask for information about what actions people are taking in relation to early intervention to prevent offending, diversion from prosecution and youth offending.
On amendments 73 and 75, as my colleague John Finnie said, housing is pivotal to reducing reoffending, so it is important that we recognise that role. If the minister felt the need to extend the provision at stage 3 to include healthcare and other issues, I would support that. However, it is important that the committee underlines the role of housing, so I will move those amendments.
Minister, do you want to say anything else? You look as if you might want to say something.
No, I am fine. I recognise the points that the committee is making. Depending on how the vote goes, we will reflect on whether we can make amendments at stage 3.
I thought that you were going to say something substantive—although I do not mean that what you just said was not substantive.
The question is, that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
McDougall, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Against
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 97 agreed to.
Amendment 73 moved—[Alison McInnes].
The question is, that amendment 73 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
McDougall, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Against
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 73 agreed to.
Amendment 32 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
I am listening to the sound of something happening that was not supposed to be able to happen.
Section 14—Review of national strategy
Amendment 33 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Section 15—National performance framework in relation to community justice
Amendment 74 not moved.
The question is, that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we agreed? [Interruption.] Oh—I beg your pardon. It is my turn to make a mistake, just to show that I am in a team with you, making mistakes.
Amendment 75 moved—[Alison McInnes].
The question is, that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
McDougall, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Against
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 75 agreed to.
Amendment 34 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Section 16—Review of national performance framework
Amendment 35 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Amendments 76 and 77 not moved.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
Section 17—Preparation of community justice outcomes improvement plan
Amendments 78 to 80 not moved.
Section 17 agreed to.
Section 18—Community justice outcomes improvement plan: engagement
Amendments 36 to 42 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
After section 18
Amendment 98 not moved.
Section 19—Review of community justice outcomes improvement plan
Amendment 43 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Amendment 81 not moved.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
Section 20—Reports on performance in relation to community justice outcomes
Amendment 44 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Amendment 82 not moved.
Amendments 45 to 47 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Amendment 83 not moved.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
Section 23—Monitoring of performance in relation to community justice outcomes
Amendment 84 not moved.
Amendment 48 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Amendment 85 not moved.
I call amendment 86 in the name of Elaine—
Not moved.
You are catching up. You are so desperate to get through this that we will soon be ahead of each other.
Amendment 86 not moved.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24—Section 23: recommendations to Scottish Ministers
Amendment 49 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Section 25—Annual report on performance in relation to community justice outcomes
Amendments 50 and 51 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Amendment 87 not moved.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
After section 25
Amendments 52 to 54 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
11:00
Section 26—Ability of Community Justice Scotland to develop and arrange services
Amendment 88, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendments 89 to 91 and 57. I point out that, if amendment 91 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 56 in the group on role of third sector bodies and community bodies in relation to functions under the act, as it will have been pre-empted.
I will remember to move amendment 88 at the right time, convener.
Amendments 88 to 91, which pertain to section 26, relate to the involvement of local government and local partnerships in the commissioning process undertaken by community justice Scotland. COSLA is concerned that CJS’s ability to commission services as set out in section 26 must neither duplicate work at a local level nor undermine local prioritisation of what is needed. Indeed, that key message was contained in our stage 1 report.
Scottish local government already takes a sophisticated and informed approach to local and national commissioning. Although CJS needs to be able to commission certain services, that ability should be limited to functions that are currently delivered by the Scottish Government and its agencies and should not encroach on local work. In order to protect local services, the amendments would enable the bill to draw clear parameters around the territory of local and central Government and perhaps the Government agencies that might be involved. COSLA believes that it is important for that to be reflected in the bill and not simply left to guidance.
As a result, assurances are required that local authorities and local community justice partners will be fully involved in the national commissioning process. Although there will always be a case for shifting competencies around different spheres of government, such matters affect democracy and accountability and should therefore be the subject of full and robust debate whenever they happen.
Amendments 88 to 91, which seek to amend section 26, would ensure the involvement of local authorities and local partnerships in the national commissioning process. The Scottish Government has said that it will instruct CJS to develop a commissioning framework with COSLA but, because that has obviously not happened so far, COSLA hopes that the bill will contain safeguards in that respect. If the amendments are agreed to, the provisions in section 26 can be referred to in the national commissioning framework and will ensure that services commissioned by CJS receive local buy-in.
The amendments are also intended as a response to the Justice Committee’s stage 1 report, which said:
“We warn against a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach: community justice arrangements must be flexible enough to allow decisions to be taken at local level, based on local need”
and:
“we note the position of some witnesses that CJS should, in developing and arranging services, avoid undermining local needs.”
Moreover, I note that the Scottish Government’s “What Works to Reduce Reoffending: A Summary of the Evidence”, which was published in 2015, found:
“One of the most consistent findings of this evidence review is that one-size-fits-all interventions are ill-suited to reducing reoffending, and that there are differences between individuals who offend.”
The amendments would also go some way towards meeting Audit Scotland’s concern that community justice funding should ensure that
“there is more flexibility to meet local needs and priorities”
and that CJS should not be an obstacle to that.
I do not think that I need to go through the detail of the amendments, but I have at least outlined the policy intention behind them.
I move amendment 88.
Thank you very much, Elaine. You are doing well against the lurgy—which, by the way, I did not give the deputy convener; she got it all by herself.
If you will forgive me, minister, I will continue this session for a bit longer. We are nearly finished. I know that there is a whirring noise at the back of the room, but we are going to deal with it. Believe it or not, though, it is going to take someone with a screwdriver, wrench, hammer and I do not know what else—we will see what comes in—five minutes to fix it.
I call the minister to speak to amendment 57 and the other amendments in the group.
Section 26 makes provision for community justice Scotland to develop and arrange services. In order to fulfil that provision, community justice Scotland will, as one of its first actions, work with community justice partners and the third sector to develop and agree a strategic approach to commissioning to ensure that there is an evidence-led and co-ordinated long-term approach to commissioning for community justice in Scotland.
Amendments 88 to 91, in the name of Elaine Murray, would significantly alter community justice Scotland’s role in the commissioning of community justice services in a way that we feel is contrary to the bill’s purposes. Amendment 90 would insert a requirement for community justice Scotland to have regard to the desirability of working in collaboration not only with other parties as currently provided for but specifically with local authorities. I cannot see a good reason for local authorities to be given such prominence over other community justice partners and stakeholders. Given the importance of their role in relation to community justice, I would fully expect local authorities to be included in the “others” that community justice Scotland should consider working in collaboration with under section 26(4), so there is no need for local authorities to be specifically named in that provision; indeed, we believe that it would be inappropriate to do so. I therefore cannot support amendment 90.
As for amendment 91, which would remove altogether the provision for Scottish ministers to direct community justice Scotland to develop or arrange services, the committee will not be surprised to hear that I cannot support that proposal either. As priorities change or the community justice landscape shifts, Scottish ministers might be required to direct community justice Scotland to develop specific community justice services at a national level, and it is crucial that ministers have that ability. I have already given assurances that, where Scottish ministers need to establish a new or national initiative, they will consult COSLA leaders as appropriate with a view to seeking their agreement. That would respect the established procedures for the setting of the public sector budget in Scotland. I therefore urge the committee not to agree to amendment 91.
Amendment 88 seeks to prevent community justice Scotland from encouraging or assisting community justice partners in the commissioning of community justice services. As I believe that the provisions in section 26(2) will support in a positive way the ability of local areas to commission and procure by enabling community justice Scotland to encourage and assist those partners in that work, I believe that amendment 88 would deprive the partners of an important source of support.
Amendment 89 seeks to add some wording to section 26(3)(b). Section 26 states that a service that community justice Scotland might identify, design or make arrangements for the provision of may be for either
“all of Scotland, or ... the areas of particular local authorities.”
Amendment 89 would provide that where such provision is for
“the areas of particular local authorities”
it should require the local authorities’ agreement. It would seem that the purpose behind the amendment, when taken with amendments 90 and 91, is to ensure that community justice Scotland cannot undertake its powers under section 26 without the agreement of local authorities, unless such a service were to be national. That would mean that if community justice Scotland wanted to commission a service for community reintegration or via the third sector for a particular area or areas of the country, the local authority—in other words, one community justice partner on its own—would have the power of veto. That is contrary to the entire spirit and direction of the new model.
I cannot imagine that that was the actual planned effect of amendment 89, and I therefore urge Dr Murray not to move it. I have already given assurances that, where Scottish ministers needed to establish a new or national initiative and in any decision that would have an impact on local financial and commissioning decisions, ministers would consult COSLA leaders as appropriate, with a view to seeking agreement. That would respect the established procedures for the setting of the public sector budget in Scotland. Indeed, that very point is covered in section 26(7).
If the amendments are intended to reflect a concern that community justice Scotland could duplicate work at a local level or undermine local prioritisation, I will seek to provide reassurance on that point. Local ownership of community justice is absolutely vital to the success of the new arrangements. Under the new model, the default is for the majority of commissioning to take place locally, and organisations will be expected to work together to commission services where benefits in doing so have been identified. Where community justice partners have expertise in commissioning, they are invited to share that with their fellow community justice partners and community justice Scotland. After all, the new model seeks to promote the sharing of good practice.
I should point out that Dr Murray’s amendments, if the committee were minded to accept them, would have the following consequences for commissioning arrangements. Local authorities would be given pre-eminence over the other community justice partners; Scottish ministers would be prevented from directing community justice Scotland to develop community justice services at a national level, where that was appropriate; community justice Scotland would be prevented from encouraging or assisting community justice partners in developing and arranging services; and local authorities would effectively be handed a power of veto over the commissioning of local services in their areas. All of that completely undermines the collaborative spirit of strategic commissioning and constrains flexibility for local community justice partners by bringing local commissioning under the control of local authorities. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 88 to 91 and invite the committee not to agree to them.
Amendment 57 in my name corrects an ambiguity in section 26(8) and makes it absolutely clear that community justice Scotland will not provide community justice services, either on its own or in collaboration with others. I point out, however, that the amendment does not affect community justice Scotland’s ability under section 26 to commission a service in relation to community justice for all of Scotland or for particular local authority areas.
I oppose Elaine Murray’s amendments. It seems to me that the flavour of the bill is all about encouragement, assistance and working together, and those amendments seem to restrict community justice Scotland’s ability to provide any assistance with regard to commissioning. I agree that the majority of commissioning must take place locally, but there must be some provision for community justice Scotland to provide assistance on occasion. The kind of turf war that seems to lie behind the amendments is not, I think, the way forward.
I call Elaine Murray to either press or withdraw amendment 88.
I seek leave to withdraw amendment 88.
Amendment 88, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 89 and 90 not moved.
Amendment 55 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Amendment 91 not moved.
Amendments 56 and 57 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
Section 27—Strategy for innovation, learning and development
Amendment 58 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Section 28—Review of strategy for innovation, learning and development
Amendment 59 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
After section 28
Amendment 92 not moved.
Section 29—Innovation, learning and development activity
Amendment 60, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 61 and 62.
Amendments 60 to 62 make minor changes to section 29 to put beyond doubt what is referred to by the provisions in that section that relate to developing and providing education and training.
Section 29(4) currently provides that
“Community Justice Scotland may charge for any education or training materials developed or provided by virtue of”
section 29(1), and amendment 60 seeks to remove the word “materials” from section 29(4) to allow community justice Scotland to charge for education or training in general. Amendment 62 makes it clear that references in section 29 to education and training include educational materials and training materials. The upshot is that community justice Scotland may charge for the development or provision of education or training or any materials in that respect. Finally, amendment 61 seeks to clarify that community justice Scotland can charge only where it has provided the education and training or the related materials itself.
I move amendment 60.
Amendment 60 agreed to.
Amendments 61 and 62 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
Section 30—Duty of co-operation
Amendment 93 not moved.
Section 30 agreed to.
After section 30
Amendment 99 not moved.
Section 31 agreed to.
Section 32—Interpretation
Amendment 63 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
Section 33 agreed to.
Schedule 2—Minor and consequential modifications
Amendment 64, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 65.
Government amendments 64 and 65 relate to consequential modifications that the bill makes to section 11 of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005.
Section 11(2) of the 2005 act requires the “responsible authorities” to prepare a report that is to be published in the area of the local authority concerned and submitted to the community justice authority for the area. Paragraph 5(3) of schedule 2 to the bill as introduced amends section 11 of the 2005 act to require the “responsible authorities” to submit their report on the discharge of their functions under section 10 of the 2005 act to community justice Scotland instead of the community justice authorities, which are, of course, being abolished by the bill. Community justice Scotland is then required to send a copy of that report to Scottish ministers.
Paragraph 5(3) of schedule 2 to the bill as introduced also adjusts the publication requirement to require publication
“in such manner as will ensure that the report is likely to come to the attention of the other community justice partners for the area of the local authority.”
However, given that the planning and delivery of community justice services in the local area will be the responsibility of the relevant community justice partners rather than community justice Scotland, it is felt, on reflection, more appropriate for the community justice partners to consider the content of the report as it develops and to reflect any observations on it, within their area, in their community justice outcomes improvement plans and indeed in their annual reports on the achievement of outcomes, without there being any further requirement to send the reports to community justice Scotland. Accordingly, amendment 64 removes the requirement in paragraph 5(3)(a) of schedule 2 for responsible authorities to send the report to community justice Scotland. It also repeals section 11(2)(c) of the 2005 act as a consequence of the disestablishment of the community justice authorities.
Amendment 65 proposes to remove the requirement in the bill for community justice Scotland to send a copy of the report to Scottish ministers. As the ministers are one of the responsible authorities, they already have access to it. As paragraph 5(3)(b) of schedule 2 is not changed by the amendment, the responsible authorities will, in future, be required to publish their reports
“in such manner as will ensure that the report is likely to come to the attention of the other community justice partners for the area of the local authority.”
I move amendment 64.
Amendment 64 agreed to.
Amendment 65 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 34 to 37 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill—just one minute over time. I congratulate the minister and the committee, and I suspend the meeting for five minutes.
11:16 Meeting suspended.