With the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014, there was certainly an example in which we did not follow the correct practice, and a letter of apology was sent to the committee on that. The timescales for the implementation were tight, but nonetheless we should have followed the procedures that we have in place to alert the committee.
I think that there was a second occasion on which we did not meet the timescales. However, on that occasion, we followed the convention of giving an explanation in advance. It makes a difference if, before something has happened, we have explained why.
With the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, the situation was slightly unusual in that the commencement date of 13 August had been agreed with the justice partners and practical arrangements had been put in place, such as information technology arrangements and staff training procedures. We were on course to lay the order within the correct timescale and then, close to the end, something was identified that meant that the order could not be laid.
There was not an intentional shortening of the time; instead, an unexpected change led to the delay in the order being laid. At that point, we had two choices: we could have either laid the order with a reduced time or changed the implementation date. Given that all the work had been done with the partners for a commencement date of 13 August, it would have been more disruptive to change that.
We always do our best to meet the timescales that we have agreed and which are best practice, but there will be occasions when we have to say, “Sorry, but we have not managed to keep to the timescale,” and then give the reasons. I hope that the committee will accept that the reasons are valid.