Seòmar agus comataidhean

That needs to be measured, and it needs to be measured in a meaningful way.

Earlier, we mentioned the governance and accountability lines, particularly since the passing of the Community Justice (Scotland) Act 2016. Colin Beattie has a series of questions about that.

Thank you, Mr Griffin. Feel free to bring in the other witnesses alongside you, if you think that they could helpfully illuminate some of those points further.

You spoke of totals. I am not in a position to dispute the figures that you presented to us, which we will look at in a bit more detail, but there is an emphasis in the Audit Scotland briefing on the proportions. It is a stated aim of public policy to change the balance between custodial and non-custodial sentences. However, over the past three years, the proportion of non-custodial sentences went from 59 per cent to 56 per cent, then back up to 59 per cent. That does not show a clear line of progress to the public or members of this committee; rather, it looks as though there has been one step forward, one step back, then one step forward again. Will you reflect on the proportions as well as the totals?

The second item on our agenda, and the main purpose of the first half of our meeting, is to discuss the Audit Scotland briefing, “Community justice: Sustainable alternatives to custody”. We have with us three witnesses from the Scottish Government. I am delighted to welcome to the committee Joe Griffin, who is the director general of education and justice; Neil Rennick, who is the director of justice; and Catriona Dalrymple, who is the deputy director of community justice and parole.

We have a number of questions to ask, but perhaps Mr Griffin would like to begin by making an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr Griffin. As I said, we have a range of questions that we want to ask and ground that we want to cover.

I will begin by reflecting on the briefing, which put in fairly sharp relief the picture as Audit Scotland saw it. When we received evidence from the Auditor General, he said that there was

“a fairly static level of progress”,—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 30 September 2021; c 37.]

which was an interesting—and perhaps a polite—way of describing what could best be described as a zig-zag in the outcomes of custodial versus non-custodial sentences.

It is important to emphasise that the findings of Audit Scotland were that, if people with sentences of one year or less were put in custody, there was a 49 per cent chance of reconviction within the next year, whereas if they went into the community justice system, there was a 30 per cent probability of reconviction.

We also know that there is an enormous cost to the public of people serving time in prison. Audit Scotland came to the figure of a cost of more than £37,000 a year for somebody to be kept in jail, compared with a cost of around £1,894 a year for an equivalent community sentence. That is a massive discrepancy and, as the Public Audit Committee, we are interested in such figures.

Do you accept those findings and all the other findings in the report?

I was not suggesting a target for the prison population; I was referring to the whole basis of the conversation this morning, which is about the proportions and how we get a shift from custodial to community-based justice options. That is not about a cap on the prison population; it is about how we shift from disposals that are custody based to disposals that are not custody based. My question is: are you set any targets for that shift in balance from one to the other?

The third item on our agenda is evidence from Audit Scotland on its briefing paper, “Covid-19 vaccination programme”, which was produced recently. Our witnesses will give evidence on the research and audit that has been carried out by Audit Scotland. I welcome Stephen Boyle, the Auditor General for Scotland, and Leigh Johnston, who is a senior manager at Audit Scotland. Joining us remotely is Eva Thomas-Tudo, who is a senior auditor for performance audit and best value at Audit Scotland.

If Eva Thomas-Tudo wants to come in, she should put an R in the chat function. If the witnesses in the room want to come in, they should simply indicate to me or the clerks, and we will do our best to bring them in.

I ask Stephen Boyle to give a brief opening statement.

It does include that cost. That is good.

You mentioned recent announcements. An additional £482 million was announced, to include funding for personal protective equipment, test and protect and the delivery of Covid-19 vaccinations. Does the Auditor General or any member of the team have a sense of how that will fit the expected likely demand?

Thank you very much for taking part in this morning’s round-table discussion. As I said, I am going to start with questions from MSPs, but panellists should feel free to come in when they want to make a contribution or a point. Sharon Dowey has a question to get us under way.

Good morning. I welcome everybody to this, the sixth meeting of the Public Audit Committee in this session of Parliament. Before we start our business today, I remind everybody in the committee room that social distancing measures are still in place. If you are moving around, entering or exiting the room, please wear a face covering.

Our first item of business is to agree to take agenda item 3 in private. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I do not think that anyone has indicated that they want to come in. As we have the Auditor General here, I think that it would be useful to get his reflections on where he thinks we are with data collection—not just data for data’s sake, but data that tells us about outcomes.