Public Audit Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, September 30, 2021

Official Report 599KB pdf

---

“Community justice: Sustainable alternatives to custody”

I reconvene the meeting.

We have an important item on our agenda about the Audit Scotland report entitled “Community justice: Sustainable alternatives to custody”. However, before we get to that, I want to refer to the briefing on the vaccination programme that has been published today, I think. It struck me that that is an important piece of work and pretty much a good-news story that reflects on the success of the vaccination programme. Exhibit 2 is a particularly striking demonstration of the extent to which the vaccination programme has reduced hospitalisations, case numbers and people dying from Covid-19.

It is also clear from the briefing that there are still some obstacles that are built on inequalities, and that the level of vaccine hesitancy in some groups—by age and ethnicity, for example—is greater than it is in others. I think that there will need to be further work that looks into the underlying reasons for that. I do not know whether Audit Scotland or others will carry out that work, but that is clearly a challenge that we as a society face. I am sure that we as a committee will consider the briefing in detail in the fullness of time.

Do you want to make any comments on the briefing, Auditor General?

Thanks, convener.

We look forward to briefing the committee in due course on our briefing paper on vaccinations. The situation is very much as you have described it, convener. We concluded that the national health service in Scotland has made excellent progress in the delivery of the vaccination programme for Covid-19. We referred to evidence sources on the drop in hospitalisations and deaths arising from Covid-19 since the introduction of the vaccination programme, but we also drew attention to the point that you ended on. There is still some work to do, particularly to address vaccine hesitancy and the roll-out of the vaccination programme to younger people and people from ethnic minority backgrounds, and to follow and track the Government’s progress as it rolls out future phases of the vaccination programme. The programme has now been rolled out to the 12-to-15 age group, and the booster programme has been rolled out to other parts of Scottish society. We will continue to track that progress, and we look forward to briefing the committee on that in due course.

Thank you very much. We will now go back to the agenda.

I thank Stephen Boyle for joining us once again, and we are pleased to welcome by videolink Antony Clark, who is interim director of performance audit and best value at Audit Scotland, and Nichola Williams, who is a senior auditor at Audit Scotland. Once again, Willie Coffey, who is of our own, is joining us by videolink.

I ask the Auditor General to give us a brief introductory statement. We would then like to ask questions about the community justice report.

Good morning, committee.

Our report looks at the development of community justice in Scotland in recent years. It focuses on sentencing data, funding and reconvictions, and it also looks at the Scottish Government’s overall objectives for community justice.

The Government’s aim is to shift sentencing towards community-based options and away from prisons, particularly for short-term sentences. However, we have noted that the progress in shifting that balance has been slow and that Scotland still imprisons people at a higher rate than most countries in western Europe do. In 2019-20, 59 per cent of people who were convicted were given community sentences. That is the same proportion as in 2016-17, when the latest community justice strategy was published.

Data also shows that people who serve community sentences are less likely than people who serve short-term prison sentences to be convicted of another offence. In 2017-18, 49 per cent of people who were released from prison after serving a sentence of less than one year were reconvicted within one year, whereas the reconviction rate for those with community sentences was 30 per cent.

People who have been convicted of a crime are more likely to come from a deprived background or to have experienced other hardships. There is a lack of published data on wider outcomes, such as in health or employment, for people who have completed either type of sentence.

The report concludes with a number of questions for the Scottish Government about the roles and responsibilities of those involved in the planning and delivery of community justice as well as those involved in the variation of use, success and cost of community justice across the country. It is important that the wider outcomes of community sentencing beyond reducing reoffending are defined and that data are collected to be able to assess whether they are being achieved. The Scottish Government’s recover, renew and transform programme may provide an opportunity to address some of those issues and further progress the shift to greater use of sustainable alternatives to custody, but that programme is at an early stage.

Following the publication of our report, the Scottish Government launched this week its consultation on its next national strategy for community justice. My intention is to keep developments under review and to consider further audit work in the near future.

My colleagues Antony Clark and Nichola Williams and I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.

Thank you very much. Without further ado, I invite Willie Coffey, who is joining us via videolink, to ask the first question.

I want to kick off the discussion on a point that Stephen Boyle made. Clearly, despite the success that we have seen—[Inaudible.]—for those who get a community sentence, as you have said, the numbers of those who get a community sentence have basically flatlined for the past four or five years. What are the reasons behind that? What can we possibly do about it?

I am happy to start; I will probably invite Nichola Williams and Antony Clark to contribute, as well.

The fundamental point about sentencing is that the judiciary is independent and it will, rightly, determine the sentencing arrangements at its discretion. That is how sentencing happens in this country. The guidance that accompanies that is one factor; the availability, awareness and success of community sentences relative to prison sentences are also factors.

The recent volatility in the presumption against shorter sentences will be a further factor in their use across the country. The report touches on that, but there is more scope to consider it. We have seen really clearly the extent of regional variations in the use of community sentencing across Scotland. There will inevitably be factors behind that. The variability is quite stark from some of the data. We referred to a number of local authorities to illustrate that point. To build on themes that we have touched on in other aspects of our recent reporting, the data is not yet clear enough on why there is that regional variation and what the intended outcomes are from the use of community sentencing relative to prison sentences.

Willie Coffey’s point is absolutely clear. There is flatlining in the extent to which community sentences are being used in Scotland.

I invite Nichola Williams to say a bit more about some of the data that we have seen.

10:15  

I will go a bit more into the variation that the Auditor General has spoken about.

We know that, overall, the proportion of people who got community sentences as opposed to going into custody was the same in the latest year, at 59 per cent, as it was back in 2016-17. However, if we look underneath that at main crime types, we see that there are some areas in which that proportion has increased. For example, the proportion of people who are getting community sentences for motor vehicle offences has increased. If we look across the regional variations, we see that there has been an increase in some council areas and that there is quite a stark difference between the lowest and highest uses of community sentences.

Understanding a bit more about that variation and why that is happening for some crime types and some areas could help the Scottish Government to better understand why it is not happening overall and how to overcome some of the barriers.

I do not have much to add to the various factors that Stephen Boyle and Nichola Williams have identified which might influence the variability of performance. I think that the issue has been acknowledged by Community Justice Scotland and the Scottish Government, and it was picked up in the consultation paper that the Auditor General mentioned earlier.

At the back of the report, we made the specific recommendation that more work should be done to try to better understand the factors that are causing variation and the barriers to making the shift from custodial sentences to community-based sentences. We hope that that will be picked up through the—[Inaudible.]—Scottish Government and the community justice partnerships.

Thank you very much.

It strikes me that the figures in the briefing are quite stark. In your introduction you mentioned that, for those who are imprisoned for a year or less, 49 per cent will be reconvicted within a year, whereas for those who are put on a community sentence, the reconviction rate is down to less than a third—30 per cent. We know that the balance between custodial sentences and community sentences has plateaued—that expression has been used already. A couple of years ago, the balance between community and custodial sentences was 59 per cent in favour of community sentences, which dropped to 55 per cent and then went back up to 59 per cent. Does the Scottish Government have a target that it wishes to reach in the balance between custodial sentences and community sentences?

I am not sure I know the answer to that, convener. The team can maybe help me out on whether a target has been set. I will check in with Nichola Williams on that.

No, we have not seen any evidence of a target that the Scottish Government is aiming to reach. I do not think that there is a target.

The extent of the current pressure on the capacity of Scotland’s prisons is a matter of public policy concern. Based on your analysis, do you have any sense of the reduction or change in the balance of those figures that would address that concern? You have reported on the state of the Scottish Prison Service before. Do you have a view about the extent to which the balance needs to be tilted from custodial to community sentences to relieve the pressure in the prison service?

I am happy to address all those points. On there not being a target, it will be for the Government and its advisers to determine the nature of the Government’s ambition and what is achievable in setting a target. One of the wider points in this paper—echoed by Community Justice Scotland in some of its commentary on it—is the need for clearer data to support any measurable target and delivery of outcomes.

In recent weeks, in relation to some of our other work, we have talked about the extent of Covid and its implications for backlogs in the delivery of public services and in the NHS, as well as in the justice system, which is relevant to the briefing. You mentioned Audit Scotland. In 2019, my predecessor prepared a section 22 report on the Scottish Prison Service, highlighting some of the challenges in relation to capacity, funding and other factors in that organisation.

As and when throughput through the justice system reaches a pre-pandemic rate, that stress and pressure will be pending. The Government’s initial objectives around community justice were twofold. The first objective is around the reconviction rates and that difference between community and prison sentences, as well as the wider outcomes in terms of employment, family connections and health outcomes that are anticipated to be better through a community justice approach.

The other factor is the difference between the costs of the prison population and community sentences. We looked to exemplify that difference in cost in the report in exhibit 3, which gives an indication of the cost of a prison place at £37,000 or so per annum compared to the cost of a community payback order at less than £2,000. All those factors will be important considerations for the Government and the community justice sector as the Government looks to launch its consultation on the next strategy for community justice in the country.

Finally, if the reconviction rate is demonstrably so much better for community sentences as opposed to custodial sentences, the cost is considerably different and it is clear that the impact on the prison population and the overcrowding of prisons must be a consideration, why has so little progress been made?

We looked to highlight those very issues through the report, but ultimately we did not get into more of that analysis and judgment of the progress that has yet to be seen—that will probably be for our next piece of work following the consultation. There are very clear issues about the scale of spending, the backlog in the justice system, and the lack of progress around shifting that balance in sentencing. However, we are awaiting the conclusion of the consultation and some of the judgments that the Government and Community Justice Scotland will make in plans to change some of those issues.

An issue worth highlighting that comes through in the report is the difference in the accountability arrangements across the country. We have the national agency, which is Community Justice Scotland and—as we set out in exhibit 2 in the report—we have 30 community justice partnerships, which is where the management work and the interventions through social work services are undertaken. However, there are quite varied accountability arrangements, and the ability of Community Justice Scotland to influence and lead some of that work is questionable. All of that would be fertile ground for the Government and Community Justice Scotland to consider to see whether the system is working as intended.

Thank you. We may want to probe a little bit more into that.

On data and outcomes—about which our predecessor committee raised significant concerns—there is a recurring key audit theme about incomplete and poor-quality data, which prevents us from measuring the progress and success of a policy and whether it is delivering value for money. It is particularly frustrating that the impact of a lack of data was previously highlighted in Audit Scotland’s 2012 report, “Reducing reoffending in Scotland”. Are you aware of any improvements that have been made in that area over the past nine years?

In relation to one part of the delivery of public services, it is frustrating that incomplete data, inconsistent data and not having a feel for whether or not the investment is delivering as intended is a recurring theme. We recognise the finding in the legacy report from the previous committee and we are not seeing that translated into the delivery of services in this sector of Scottish public life, public service and public spending.

One of the key findings from the Audit Scotland report is about the various factors that can influence the wider outcomes in public service delivery and people’s lives. This perhaps echoes some of your earlier discussion this morning: from our work, it is not clear whether public spending is delivering improved health outcomes, education outcomes and employment prospects for people who have gone through the justice system. It is an important issue, and one of the questions that we posed to the Government and Community Justice Scotland—no doubt to be considered through their consultation—concerns how they intend to have more consistent high-quality data that allows for the tracking and monitoring of data and outcomes.

Have they given any explanation at all of why there have not been any improvements?

Nichola Williams has been looking at some of the work on data, and I will ask her to come in again in a moment. I go back to our discussion a moment or two ago about the accountability arrangements, which are undoubtedly a factor. Exhibit 2 tries to set out the flow of funding and the accountability arrangements. Looking at the system as it is set out in exhibit 2, we see that we have a structure of 30 community justice partnerships, comprising of a range of public bodies that are accountable for their own arrangements and spending.

I refer to some of our other recent commentary on data and measures, where we tend to find that public bodies perform to the measures for which they are accountable. A local authority, an NHS board and the police or fire services are each responsible for a set of accountabilities, and what we have here is almost a parallel set of accountabilities, but not necessarily the ones that are the most dominant. Those are all factors that we are finding. Again, we have seen commentary from Community Justice Scotland about its enthusiasm to explore some of the accountability arrangements and improve the quality of data, ultimately to lead to better outcomes. I invite Nichola Williams to come in on some of the commentary and discussion on that.

With regard to some of the differences in the data collection since the 2012 report, in 2016, the Government published a new outcomes improvement and performance framework alongside the justice strategy. That was to allow Community Justice Scotland to publish an annual report, where it would report on progress against the national community justice outcomes. What it has said in the most recent reports is that the data that it is getting from the partnerships is not allowing it to do that.

Although Community Justice Scotland is getting examples of good practice happening and improving outcomes at a local level, the data that the framework provides does not allow it to compare between areas. It is just not comparable data, which also means that it cannot aggregate it out to a national level, so it cannot look at the national progress against outcomes. It is currently having a look at refreshing that framework and it will be making recommendations to the Government about a future framework, which will hopefully improve that, but the current framework just does not allow it to do that.

Accountability seems to be a recurring theme in most of our meetings just now. Exhibit 2 of your briefing sets out the role of Community Justice Scotland and says that it oversees and reports on the performance of community justice services. It appears that, although the 30 community justice partnerships must provide information to Community Justice Scotland, individual partners remain accountable through their usual accountability arrangements. Can you tell us what powers Community Justice Scotland has as part of its overseeing role? Is it correct to say that, should there be an issue with any of the partners, Community Justice Scotland would have no power to take any action other than to report the issue to Scottish ministers?

Generally speaking, that is the case. We describe Community Justice Scotland as having a power of promotion, support, oversight and reporting on performance, as distinct from one of intervention to require the members of community justice partnerships to do something at its direction—that is not the model that we are operating with. Again, I think that that allows us to infer the conclusion that that is part of the reason why we see such variability and incomplete data, which we refer to in the report. Therefore, there is a need to get underneath that and to have good examples of good practice, so that there is more promotion of community justice and more clarity about its impact and the improvement in outcomes that is intended to be delivered. Again, I will pause and see if Nichola Williams wants to add anything to that.

I do not have anything to add. Community Justice Scotland will report on the performance to ministers rather than take action itself, but the difficulty in getting that comparable data to be able to look at how performance compares across areas will make that more of a challenge.

10:30  

Thank you. Craig Hoy will ask some questions on a related theme.

Good morning. One of the key issues that was identified in your briefing is that Community Justice Scotland has reported that data deficiencies mean that progress against national community justice outcomes is still not being effectively measured. Have you been able to ascertain yet whether Community Justice Scotland has identified where those deficiencies exist and who is ultimately responsible for them?

I will say a bit about who is responsible for data deficiencies. In the structure that we have, the accountability rests with the individual bodies that comprise the community justice partnerships. In part, we can infer that that is one of the reasons for the complex accountability nature of the structure. It is interesting to note that, when Audit Scotland produced the 2012 report about reducing reoffending, one of its conclusions was about the complex structure and accountability arrangements that existed in Scotland around community justice, with eight community justice authorities and a sense of confusion about roles and responsibilities.

When the new structure was created in 2016 and 2017, with the creation of Community Justice Scotland, there were similar voices who questioned whether it was sufficient to allow for that clarity and accountability and to bring about the change in outcomes that we had hoped for. On the point about inconsistency, Nichola Williams can say whether there are any examples that we can offer to the committee.

In terms of gaps in the data and the inconsistencies, Community Justice Scotland has been quite clear in its most recent report about what is missing and the fact that it is not getting that data because of the performance framework. Specifically, some of the community justice outcomes are around the wider outcomes: employability, health and housing, which are the kind of things that people might be struggling with when they go into the justice system. That is what it has identified is missing and is not comparable between areas. It is currently carrying out work involving stakeholders to look at what should be recorded so that it can make good recommendations to the Government to refresh that framework, so there is work happening on it now.

You have broadly answered the second question that I was going to ask. When you said there was little evidence of a shift towards the use of community-based sentences or of improved outcomes, is that due to a lack of data? You have pretty much said that is not the case. I want to broaden that out. As we look at the wider use of community justice and community payback orders, if that trend is achieved , will that be a more difficult environment to audit and to benchmark and in which to assess outcomes and people’s experience than a custodial environment? Obviously, if somebody goes into prison, you know the amount of time that they are in for and you know their release date, but, in relation to doing community justice payback orders, for example, how easy is it to monitor the hours that an individual has undertaken?

Finally, in relation to that, community payback orders and the performance is not included in the victim notification scheme. Is that a policy decision or does that point to any doubts that you may have about the integrity of the data?

Again, I will invite colleagues to come in in a moment or two. Part of the work will involve input data, so that it will be clear how many community payback orders have been completed. It is also clear how many prison sentences have been served. I think that what is coming through in the paper and the conversation is that there are data gaps that go beyond that.

To an extent, we know about the reconviction rates and how they vary between prison sentences and community-based sentences, but we need to go beyond that. What is the impact of those sentences on some of the wider outcomes—health, employability arrangements and so forth—that we have not seen? That is the data that will allow that wider judgment, not just by us, but by Community Justice Scotland, by Government and the people who are using these services to get a much stronger feel for whether the money is being spent well and properly supports the ambition to transition to fewer prison sentences and more into community-based arrangements.

I am not sure that I know the answer to your question on the victim notification scheme. Perhaps my colleagues can answer that.

Unfortunately, we are shaking our heads on that one, so we will do our best to come back to the committee in writing on that point.

I have a final question about the complexities of the data and comparing apples with apples and pears with pears. As community justice grows as a concept and, presumably, first offenders and those who have committed less serious crimes go down the community justice route, whereas repeat offenders and those who have committed more serious crimes go down the custodial route, how will you continue to compare the two? Obviously, a repeat offender of a more serious crime is probably more likely to offend again than a first offender of a relatively minor crime. In terms of accountability in presenting the data, will we have to be more granular and maybe add more caveats to explain that we are not comparing apples with apples and pears with pears between the two forms of justice?

We absolutely agree. There needs to be a robustness around the data, so that it is comparable over time. There will be limitations to that of course, as people enter and leave the justice system, so I suppose that the approach will involve trends and an overall view, albeit, of course, that there are individual factors therein.

I guess that that is the important point for Community Justice Scotland: if it wishes to make the impact that it aspires to, the data must be measurable and the accountability arrangements must also be clear.

Regrettably, a recurring theme is that the data on the implementation of policy is not clear enough. There are lots of factors behind that, but I refer back to our report of 2018, “Planning for outcomes”, on the need for high-quality data milestones to be set at the outset, so that measurable interventions and changes can be applied.

I will now bring in Colin Beattie, who has a number of questions.

Auditor General, in paragraph 13 you say that, to take forward any new or revised approach to community justice, the Scottish Government needs to consider and understand

“Whether all stakeholders involved in the planning and delivery of community justice have a shared understanding of lines of accountability and areas of responsibility.”

That suggests that that is not happening at the moment. How do you see it being put into place in practice?

That is indeed what we would observe: that there is not that shared understanding of accountability. As we have touched on already, exhibit 2 in the report sets out the 30 community justice partnerships and the role of Community Justice Scotland. What we are seeing, exemplified by the data gaps, is the variation in practice that is happening across Scotland, which can perhaps be attributed to the lack of a shared understanding.

Antony Clark might want to talk about some of the changes that the Government is thinking about with its recover, renew and transform programme and, through its consultation on Community Justice Scotland, its next community justice strategy for Scotland. There are opportunities to make interventions to address some of the gaps and the lack of consistency that we have seen across Scotland. We hope that that will happen, but I invite Antony Clark to say a bit more about how that is progressing.

Just before we bring in Antony Clark, do you have a timescale for that, or is it open ended?

As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, the thinking around the community justice recover, renew and transform programme is at an early stage. Two consultations are planned. One was launched this week and is designed to be stakeholder led. Another is planned for the months ahead. It will be much wider and will perhaps speak to Mr Hoy’s earlier point that, ultimately, citizens are touched by the justice system and people should have the opportunity to make a contribution.

I ask Antony Clark to say a bit more about timescales and ambitions.

I will touch on two points. First, I make the general point that the recover, renew and transform programme goes wider than community justice. It is about how the Scottish Government will deal with the impact of Covid-19 across the whole justice sector. A significant part of that will involve investing in additional court capacity to deal with the backlogs and also thinking through how to deal with workforce gaps.

The aspects of the strategy that relate to community justice are very much framed around having a better understanding of how community-based justice interventions can be made more effective—there is an evaluation aspect to that—and thinking through the interplay between community justice activity and the prison population.

Stephen Boyle mentioned the consultation exercise that is taking place—we have mentioned it a few times. Community Justice Scotland is consulting its stakeholders on how it can make things work more effectively. That touches on quite a few of the points that the committee has already mentioned today. I think that Community Justice Scotland wants to explore how it can get better data and how it can have more impact and influence in order to shape change across the system.

As part of that consultation, it is quite likely that Community Justice Scotland may get feedback on some of the difficulties that are well known and have been rehearsed, not just around the organisation itself but around partnership working more generally, where people operate with multiple accountabilities—the Auditor General has raised that point several times.

I hope that that begins to answer your question, Mr Beattie, but I am happy to follow up if you have any further questions.

We seem to be back to the hoary old issue of data, which, as you know, we encounter not only in this area. There are deficiencies in data pretty much across the board: data is not up-to-date, it is not produced in a common format and so on. Are data collection requirements not keeping up because events change so quickly? Five years ago, the range of data indicators might be adequate, but we have not transitioned to new and more effective data collection. As we know, because of the size of the public sector, it takes a long time to make these changes. Could you give us a little bit of information around that?

I am happy take that one, Mr Beattie.

All the factors that you listed are components of why the data is not as strong as it needs to be. They relate not just to the evaluation of how well public policy has been implemented, whether value for money has been achieved and what opportunities there are for change and intervention. There will be other factors, some of which are fundamental, and we have discussed them with the committee in recent times. This builds on our “Planning for outcomes” report and whether the milestones that are set are supported by the right data from the outset of the implementation of a policy.

We also recognise that we are operating in a fluid environment. Clearly, Covid has influenced that environment yet further. Some of the policy changes that will happen alongside that, such as changes to sentencing arrangements, the presumption against short sentencing and so on, will all be components. The factors around the accountability arrangements will no doubt have played a part, too. Accountability rests with individual bodies in the community justice partnerships, and perhaps there is a lack of direction through the national body being able to require certain data in certain formats at a certain time.

We are enthusiastic about one of the questions that we raise in the report. In order to evaluate, make interventions and improve outcomes, the fundamentals of high-quality data need to be resolved.

10:45  

You mentioned Covid, which brings me neatly on to the recover, renew and transform programme and how it affects community justice. Do you see the programme as an opportunity to push forward the shift to sustainable community-based alternatives to custody?

I will invite Antony Clark to come in, given his familiarity with the Government’s plans. As he rightly said, the recover, renew and transform programme is part of the Government’s wider approach to the delivery of public services and goes beyond community justice. This is perhaps borne out by what appears to be, as the convener mentioned, a fairly static level of progress in shifting the balance in sentencing, particularly for short sentences, away from a prison-based model to a community justice arrangement. I refer to factors such as data supporting a reduction in reoffending rates, or cheaper and less cost-led models of community justice relative to prison populations.

Perhaps the biggest factor is that there should be improved clarity about the wider outcomes for people who have engaged with the justice system. For example, what are the prospects in terms of employment, health outcomes and the wider contributions that will be on offer? All that thinking will be important.

I invite Antony Clark to say a bit more.

It is fair to say that it is quite difficult to give a categorical answer on the extent to which the recover, renew and transform programme will deliver the improvements that you are asking for, Mr Beattie. It is still at a relative early stage of development, beyond the thinking that has gone into additional court services to deal with the backlogs.

It is clear that there are both opportunities and risks at the moment. There is an opportunity to think differently, in the way that you suggested, about how the opportunities that are presented through the recover, renew and transform programme can help people to make that shift towards community-based interventions. There is also a risk that the need to deal with the backlog in the courts might end up being more of a driver of the programme.

We are aware that community justice is at the table and it is part of the consultation. We need to wait and see what comes out of the discussions that are taking place, as the programme is firmed up and we get more clarity about the strands of work that will flow from it. It certainly is something we are keeping a watching eye on.

It certainly appears that, as we have discussed, if all the stakeholders are not on board and pointing in the same direction, the programme will not be as effective as it should be. One should precede the other.

There is no doubt that a lack of a shared vision around delivery and accountability will be a threat to the delivery of change and therefore implementation. The variation in accountability arrangements is one of the factors that we point to in the report, along with the data gaps and regional variation. All those factors will need to be considered and, we hope, addressed to make the shift and achieve the change that was envisaged in the original policy.

On that point, I want to end our discussion by reflecting on what you are saying, which is that it is quite clear that the roles and lines of accountability are perhaps not as clear as they ought to be, and that that might be one of the factors in the object of the Government not being met as comprehensively as it would hope and many people would expect.

I want to finish by asking a little bit more about funding. We know that, in the funds for the recover, renew and transform programme, an additional £11.8 million—it is mentioned the report—has been made available for criminal justice social work services. That sounds quite a small amount of money to me. Do you think that it is sufficient to make any difference at all?

Ultimately, time will tell how well that money is used. Clearly, it is a matter of policy for the Government to determine the allocation of funding. The scale of the funding that is invested is one of the factors, convener, but it is perhaps not the sole one, as we have seen in relation to the accountability arrangements. We have talked about high-quality data and getting beneath the factors around regional variation, and those will all be components of improving how the system works. As Antony Clark mentioned, and as we touch on in the report, we intend to keep the matter under review following the consultation and will undertake further work, on which we will report back to the committee.

At the start, you mentioned the high incarceration rates in Scotland compared with those in other parts of western Europe. In your report, you say that around 5 per cent of the overall justice budget is spent on community-based sentences. What is the international picture, and what does the situation in Scotland look like in comparison with other countries that have much lower rates of imprisonment of people who have committed crimes?

I will quickly turn to Nichola Williams to give you some of the data that we looked at.

We looked at the world prison brief as the source for incarceration rates, in order to compare where Scotland sits against other jurisdictions. As we conclude in the report, we are at the higher end of the western European scale for imprisonment rates. The whole justice system is captured—the throughput in our court system, our policing arrangements and all the other components. How that all compares and which factors led to different outcomes will be pretty complex and varied. The role of the judiciary and sentencing arrangements are also involved.

We will continue to look at the issue and will report publicly, following clarity from the Government on its next steps.

I ask Nichola Williams to say whether we can enlighten you on some of the data.

As we said in the report, just under 5 per cent of total justice funding goes to community justice—mostly to partnerships. Despite the aim to shift, that has not significantly changed over time. We have not compared that balance with what happens in other countries, so I am not sure how that prison versus community spend compares with what happens in other countries that incarcerate at a lower rate than we do.

Thank you. If you come across any useful comparators where there is robust data, we would be interested to see that. I think that that might be a matter of public interest as well as being of interest to the Public Audit Committee.

I am happy to do that, convener. As we think about our next steps in further audit work in this area, we will consider comparability with other parts of the United Kingdom and beyond. If we have any useful sources, we will happily share them with the committee.

Thank you very much indeed for your evidence this morning and for the report, which contains a clear analysis of where things are and what might need to change.

I thank Antony Clark and Nichola Williams, for joining us remotely, and the Auditor General, Stephen Boyle, for being here with us at the committee.

I close the public part of today’s proceedings.

10:53 Meeting continued in private until 11:38.