Commission on Women Offenders
Item 5 is an evidence-taking session on the cabinet secretary’s report to Parliament last week—for which I thank him; it was very useful—on progress in relation to the commission on women offenders. The session will also cover any budgetary issues relating to women offenders.
I thank the cabinet secretary and Joe Griffin, deputy director of community justice at the Scottish Government, for remaining with us and I welcome to the meeting Colin McConnell, chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service. I believe that this is Mr McConnell’s second visit to the committee. He has hardly got his foot in the door and here he is, back again.
I ask the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement, after which we will move to questions from members.
I have nothing to say, convener. I am happy to go straight to questions.
That is wonderful. Alison McInnes will start the questioning.
This time last year, cabinet secretary, you were quite scornful of my pursuit of a replacement to Cornton Vale, saying:
“If you wish me to commit to or take up a Lib Dem announcement—if that is what it is—that we should build a replacement for Cornton Vale, then tell me where the money should come from, because it would probably cost about £140 million ... I cannot ask the SPS to build a replacement for Cornton Vale.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 1 November 2011; c 422.]
I genuinely welcome what was a desperately needed change of heart.
That was just wonderful, Alison.
I am making a serious point. Cabinet secretary, do you now consider yourself to have been poorly advised by the previous SPS management on this matter?
No. We are simply responding to the report of Dame Elish Angiolini’s commission—which, after all, is why we are here. She highlighted Cornton Vale’s unsuitability, which is a point that resonated in comments made by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, and we are seeking to address that particular aspect of the commission’s report. As the report makes clear, we never doubted that problems existed at Cornton Vale, but we are happy to accept the position that has been set out and I am grateful to Colin McConnell for pressing on with the replacement. It will take time, but we have committed to finding the money and I am grateful to my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth for assisting us in that effort.
11:30
We did not really need the Angiolini report to tell us about the problems at Cornton Vale; after all, Brigadier Hugh Monro and this committee have been pressing you for a long time on the matter. The issue was the SPS’s unfortunate attitude.
Indeed, that lies at the heart of my next question. What changes have been put in place to meet the challenge of changing the culture throughout the SPS on this matter and to put women offenders properly on the agenda?
I will ask Colin McConnell to comment in a moment, but I think that the Angiolini commission has taken a holistic look at these matters. The issue is not simply about women who are in prison but about those who might be put into prison and how we divert them from going there if such a move is not appropriate. As Dame Elish accepts, prison will always be the place for some offenders, whether or not they are women, but the fact is that far too many who go there would be better diverted to alternatives. Of course, the question is how we deal with women not just when they go into prison but when they are liberated, as they will be at some point, and my colleague Joe Griffin and his team are rising to that challenge.
We accept that there are far too many prisoners at Cornton Vale and that it would be better to deal with some of them elsewhere. Of course, there is also the issue of the prison estate, which the SPS is addressing. We must ensure not only that fewer people come in to the system but that we treat the difficulties of those who do and address their offending behaviour. It is not that these people are not offending but that prison is not necessarily the best solution for alleviating the situation. In cases where, because of the nature of the offence, certain people are required to go to prison, we must try to break the cycle of offending.
Colin, do you wish to comment on the issue of culture?
Colin McConnell (Scottish Prison Service)
Certainly.
In direct response to the question, I note that the SPS had a long-standing approach to strategic planning. However, with the benefit of Dame Elish’s report—which, of course, the previous administration did not have—I as incoming chief executive have been able to take a fresh look at that planning. Now that the issues have been crystallised in the commission’s recommendations, we have been able to take a fresh approach not just to longer-term planning but to short-term opportunities for the SPS to respond speedily and meaningfully to Dame Elish’s powerful recommendations. That was the reason behind my proposals to the cabinet secretary, and I am really pleased that he has picked up on them and that we have been able to move forward as proposed.
Are you personally going to lead the holistic work that is needed?
Yes. One of the six recommendations that Dame Elish aimed at the SPS was that, in effect, someone be brought on to the SPS board at a non-executive level to drive the initiative forward. I think that we all understand why she made that recommendation; it seems to me that the spirit behind it is that someone at a senior level needs to get a grip of the matter and drive it on. However, I do not think that that needs an independent or new person; I think that the chief executive simply needs to do it and that is what I am doing.
That is very welcome. I am hopeful that if the head of the organisation recognises that the issue needs to be tackled, the culture within SPS, too, will change. I am sure that we will keep an eye on the matter.
I am well aware that the Angiolini report covers much more than Cornton Vale, and I am sure that other colleagues will touch on the other issues that it raises. However, I want to focus a bit longer on the issues at that prison. Last week, Mr McConnell advised us that he expected the new prison to cater for 300 women; however, the cabinet secretary has just said that there are far too many women in prison and part of the reason behind the Angiolini report was to find other ways of dealing with the issue. The report recommends a small national prison for those on long-term sentences and those who need to be imprisoned for the safety of the public. Does what is proposed represent a change or a general shift away from that part of the Angiolini report?
You are quite right to focus, as you did last week, on what seems to be a deviation or a disconnect from where Dame Elish wants us to go, but in reality I do not think that it is a disconnect. It is part of a journey to get us to where the commission wants us to be, which is essentially to have smaller units that target in a more focused way the many and varied special issues that confront women offenders and, more particularly, women in custody. We have to start somewhere.
Today, there are 451 women in custody across the Scottish Prison Service, with more than 250 placed at Cornton Vale. I think that we all recognise and accept that Cornton Vale is a place out of time and we need something much better. Our approach is to replace it. As you know, the replacement will be in Inverclyde. If we look back at the history of the population growth of women in custody, we see that that population has grown by more than 200 per cent over 20 years. We must be mindful that whatever we design, certainly in the short to medium term, has to be capable of managing the population that we have at present while beginning to put in place the strategies, approaches and services that will ultimately lead to the population reducing.
My counsel, if you like, or my professional advice to the cabinet secretary and the committee is that we should plan to provide a proper resource for women in custody. It must be specially targeted, as you have pressed me to ensure. Ultimately, it has to be able to cope with a population of between 450 and, say, 480, because historically that is where we have been, but it will have an absolute imperative to put in place proper support services that, in time, will reduce that population. That is what we are about.
That is useful. I am glad that you touched on that, because the problems at Cornton Vale run deep. They go far beyond the state of the buildings. There are problems with how mental health issues are dealt with, or indeed not dealt with, the prolonged segregation of some women prisoners, problems with family access and insufficient access to education and training. All those issues have been highlighted time and again.
What provisions will you put in place in the new prison, particularly in terms of capacity and physical space, to deal with the mental health issues and access to education and training? I would be interested to hear about that.
Dame Elish set out an extensive list of services that she recommended we provide. Our approach, not just to provision at Inverclyde, but in the hub-and-spokes approach that we talked about last week, is that we intend—it is certainly part of the emerging design brief—for Inverclyde and subsequently the new regional unit at Edinburgh to ensure that there is specialist, targeted provision across the landscape of needs of women in custody.
For example, there will be a unit at Inverclyde that is designed to deal with women with particular mental health problems. Extensive education facilities will be provided at Cornton Vale and in the spokes out in the community-facing environment, which will be designed to integrate with community services to ensure that we get continuity between custody and the community. The recommendations in Dame Elish’s report are being brought to life, not just in the physical structures that you mentioned but in the relationships and the service provision that we will put in place.
I want to ask one final question, if the convener will allow me. What will happen in the transition? Is there enough budgetary provision to help to tackle the existing problems before Inverclyde opens?
Yes, there is. The committee will appreciate that I am not here to do a bleeding-stumps presentation. The cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government have made sure that the Scottish Prison Service is appropriately resourced to do the business that it has to do, and that includes the necessary improvements that we need to make pro tem at Cornton Vale. Those are already funded and I have set that money aside, so we will see some significant improvements to the living accommodation at Cornton Vale and the development of a family centre there, which we fully intend will be operational by the spring. As you know, we are also looking to improve the training of staff who work with women, and that is already being brought forward. Where necessary, we will pump-prime additional targeted service delivery for women at Cornton Vale while we bring on the more medium-term improvements at Inverclyde and Edinburgh.
I have a long list of members who wish to speak: Colin Keir, Rod Campbell, Sandra White, Graeme Pearson and John Finnie.
Good morning. The Angiolini commission highlighted the problem of prisoners experiencing delays in accessing entitlements on release from prison and the effect of those delays on the prospect of them reoffending. You mention in your letter that you had a meeting with the UK Minister for Welfare Reform. Is there anything that the Scottish Government can do to mitigate the problem? More generally, do you have a sense of what impact the UK Government’s welfare reforms will have on this group?
There is an issue there, as you correctly raise. I had a meeting with Lord Freud some months back, and we are working on a pilot project with the Department for Work and Pensions to try to ensure that women leaving HMP Cornton Vale are able to receive benefits immediately on release. That project is planned to be established in April 2013.
As a Government, we are also investing in services through the change fund and community justice centres to ensure that, for example, mentors will meet women at the gates as they come out. That will help to support them, but I would not underestimate the challenges that the Scottish Prison Service—and, indeed, the criminal justice system—will face from welfare reform. I am grateful to Lord Freud for considering that pilot project, but we are also taking steps ourselves.
Is there perhaps more than a fair chance that the number of women coming into the justice system will rise because of the benefit reforms?
I do not know. I think that the reforms make for great difficulty. To be fair, received wisdom was that the crime rate would rise during the recession, but that has not been the case. However, I do not think that we should underestimate the huge problem that people will face because of, for example, the change to monthly payments. That will be felt in particular by women, but it will also be felt by men and by youngsters. There are huge problems there.
We are doing what we can in terms of the prison estate and in terms of how we deal with those who are discharged or liberated from prison by trying to meet and engage with them both before their release and when they are released. The broader social matter would probably be better commented on by others, but I would be denying reality if I thought that welfare reform will not cause problems. It will cause hardship, and when there is hardship sometimes people do things that, under other circumstances, they would not consider.
The Angiolini commission was very positive about mentoring—which we talked about a few minutes ago—and said that it provides necessary support and ultimately helps to reduce reoffending. What is the Government doing to try to encourage as many women as possible into mentoring?
We are working on a variety of matters through the change fund. For example, I have met Sacro, which promotes mentoring in a number of areas, including by bringing in ex-offenders, and that is also supported by others. In a variety of ways, we are seeking to work and engage with people to give prisoners support before they leave and then when they leave. Joe Griffin will elaborate on that.
11:45
Joe Griffin (Scottish Government)
Mentoring is important because many of these issues are about not just how the services are provided but how vulnerable people access them. The terms in which people leave prison are often undesirable. Predictably, it is just before the weekend, when services are not open. Drug dealers often know exactly when their clients are coming out and are waiting for them. By getting more service user feedback, we have come to understand the real-life experience of people leaving prison. Our thinking behind expanding the range of mentoring services available was that side of the equation—to try to get people to link in with the services that already exist and to which they are entitled as citizens, as well as to look at the specialist requirement for particular types of service to respond to those circumstances.
Specifically, in setting up the reducing reoffending change fund, we and partners took the view that that should be devoted to the expansion of mentoring services across the board. There is £7.5 million available for that over the three years of the spending review period. We have now allocated funds for the first year. Groups working with women are among those that are receiving the funding. We hope that that will be a much more effective way of supporting women and others leaving prison to access the services to which they are already entitled.
How do we ensure that projects receiving money from the change fund are sustainable beyond that funding cycle, for the long term?
That is the other part of the change. When we set up the fund in the spending review, we were keen to look not only at changing the way in which people exit prison back into the community but at changing the way in which we fund things. The problem is that pilots that are run by the third sector often prove themselves to be successful but struggle to get sustainable funding thereafter.
The model that we are looking at for years 2 and 3 of the change fund is something called a public-social partnership. It is a funding model that originated in Italy whereby the third sector and statutory funders come together to co-design a service and then reach an agreement that, provided certain outcomes are met during the delivery of that service, it will be sustained over a period. We have deliberately used the change fund to test that approach in Scotland because we feel that it could be an innovative way of ensuring that the projects that really work and deliver outcomes get sustainable funding. Of course, it is early days and there are still challenges with that. I am not making great claims for success right now. However, we think that the analysis is right and that too many projects struggle to get sustainable funding. We are using the change fund to address that head on.
I want to know more about that, because the issue of short-term funding, and successful projects having to redesign themselves to apply for fresh moneys, has been a running sore for all the time that I have been in Parliament. I am encouraged by what you say about a public-social partnership. Perhaps it is not the day to tell us more about that but perhaps you could let the committee know more about how that will operate. Will it become the norm? Will it be the way in which funds are used in the voluntary sector and the public sector? When will that happen?
Money has gone out for year 1, which is to support services that are already delivering mentoring. The money has also been to help some of the recipients to prepare for years 2 and 3, which will be explicitly run along public-social partnership lines. People bidding for the change fund will need to demonstrate that they have come together—statutory and third sector—to work according to those arrangements.
We do not yet know what obstacles will prevent that from working. To some extent, they remain some of the bigger obstacles in the system about the way in which the money is used. Nevertheless, we think that it is an interesting model, which is worth looking at. That is what we are doing through the change fund.
It is too soon to say whether we will expand that model so that everything will be based on it, but there is a logic about it, and an attraction in the collaborative approach that is taken. The guarantees of sustainability are also interesting. However, I would not want to say more about it at this point.
We share the analysis of the problem. I suppose that that is one of the reasons why Dame Angiolini went on to look at the structures lying behind community justice, which the cabinet secretary has said he believes are no longer tenable. There are bigger structural questions at play as well.
I will leave it there for now, but I think that some of us might want to return to that in due course.
I want to put on record my thanks to everyone who has been involved in what is happening in Cornton Vale at the moment—Alison McInnes, the committee and others as well. A number of years ago, I visited Cornton Vale with the Equal Opportunities Committee and I have worked with others since then to bring about change. However, this is the best committee to undertake that work. I am pleased about what is happening.
I want to ask about collaborative working. There will be a new prison, which will be an improvement on Cornton Vale, but my interest is in what happens when the women are released from prison. We do not want there to be a revolving door, so the work that is done outside is important. One of the issues is housing and accommodation for women when they are released. That is a difficult issue in communities—I am sure that we have all come across difficulties with the issue in our local areas.
What is happening in terms of collaborative working on that issue? Are we working with housing associations and local authorities with regard to women being rehoused and being given mentoring back-up? The changes in the welfare system have already been discussed, but it is important that we have joined-up thinking and collaborative working to ensure that there is not a revolving door.
We are aware that stable accommodation is a critical factor in avoiding the problem that you raise. The Government is committed to tackling and preventing homelessness. That is underpinned by the target of ensuring that all unintentionally homeless households will be entitled to settled accommodation by the end of 2012. In 2009, a Government and COSLA steering group was established to take forward priorities around investing in the right areas, improving access to accommodation, developing corporate responsibility for homelessness across local authorities and—perhaps more important, given the comments that you have made—preventing homelessness before it occurs.
We have established five local authority-led housing option hubs across Scotland. They share good practice in preventing homelessness and they have discussed their findings with Dame Elish Angiolini and the commission on women offenders.
The cross-sector supported accommodation implementation group will report at the end of this month. That group has considered the recommendations of Dame Elish Angiolini’s report. As I said in my letter, officials are also exploring different models of housing support for women leaving prison, including support in tenancy.
There is no single, simple solution. Further, as you say, working with partners is important, which is why officials are working with Glasgow City Council, the Glasgow Housing Association and Turning Point Scotland to explore options for improving access to suitable accommodation. We must ensure there is suitable accommodation, but what is suitable for one person might not be for another. There must be support, and we have to work with those individuals through agencies and partners. That is what we seek to do.
Obviously, we are talking about the budget today, but we must remember that we need to give women offenders the best possible opportunity to get rehoused.
With regard to joined-up thinking, you have mentioned the hubs and so on. Will the integration of health and social care have an impact on the delivery of joined-up care and support to women offenders? Will there be regular meetings between you and the health and social care set-up, when that comes about?
Some of those matters are more for COSLA than us. However, we interact with COSLA and other Government departments. I think that your assumption is correct. That case is being worked on, and discussions are taking place on another aspect of the Angiolini report, which concerned whether there should be a national agency. We are going to consult on that. The status quo in community justice is not tenable and there have to be changes. I have been in discussions with COSLA and we will continue to engage in those discussions. Dame Elish Angiolini’s proposal will be one option for change in the consultation document, but we need to engage with partners on the matter. We have taken no firm view on it.
We are looking to work not only with COSLA but with the Association of Directors of Social Work to try to ensure that the health and social care changes do not have any consequences that would be detrimental to community or criminal justice and that the appropriate balance is maintained. We are aware of the ADSW’s thoughts about a holistic social work service and COSLA’s view—which we accept—that such things are best dealt with locally. It is about working towards change, as change there has to be, while taking on board the views of COSLA and the ADSW, and getting the best possible input from them.
I remind members that this is not just about budgets; it is also about the reports. I know that I was hard on members in the previous session, as the discussion then was about the budget, but this time we are discussing the response to Elish Angiolini’s report and budget issues, so do not feel constrained—not that many of you do.
First, it would be right to record how helpful I found the thoughtful explanations that Colin McConnell gave us last week and today. The inventiveness that he has displayed in resolving some of the issues is to be applauded. The sting in the tail is that I look forward to the same inventiveness in relation to men in prison and what they face in the future.
My question is about the role of Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons. The chief inspector reported his concerns about Cornton Vale and then, when he returned 18 months later, felt sufficiently moved to report that he had observed no change in the interim. However, let us leave aside Cornton Vale, as we are moving on and we will resolve that problem. My question is about the role of the chief inspector, and their ability to record their observations and say that things have been done or get an open response from the Government or the Scottish Prison Service that says, “We’re not going to do anything about these things.” From looking at the history of the period, it seems that the matter was parked. Nobody said, “We’re not doing anything,” but equally nobody did anything. Moving forward, where do you see the chief inspector’s role? How do we ensure that recommendations and observations that the chief inspector makes are acted on?
Brigadier Hugh Monro is doing an excellent job, as did his predecessors, Andrew McLellan and the late Clive Fairweather, to whom I pay tribute. To be fair, some of the comments that he made about Cornton Vale were addressed. He thought that particular issues had not been addressed in 18 months, but he acknowledged that progress had been made in other ways.
Retaining an independent inspectorate is necessary and appropriate. I regularly meet the chief inspector, and he has access to me. Ultimately, it is about working out a solution. There are challenging matters for the Prison Service in the chief inspector’s most recent reports, such as on the open estate, but he has reported good practice and commented quite often on outstanding practice. Things have to be taken in the round. Progress on Cornton Vale has been made and significant change has now been triggered by Angiolini, but I always attach the utmost significance to any report from the chief inspector of prisons.
Do you agree that the key point is how we ensure that recommendations and observations that the chief inspector makes are acted on? In his subsequent report, he stated blankly that he had witnessed no change as a result of his previous visit, 18 months earlier. I am not seeking someone to blame or to criticise; rather, I am trying to ensure that we do not repeat that exercise in the future with either the women’s or the men’s estate.
It is a matter of working with the Prison Service. My recollection is that progress was made on some issues, but there were fundamental issues on which progress was not made, which the chief inspector challenged. Colin McConnell’s predecessor thought that there were limitations on where the Prison Service could go with those matters, given the nature of the estates. Obviously, these are Government responsibilities, and I am held to account on them by both the committee and the Parliament. We need to continue to encourage the dynamic that exists between HMIP and the Prison Service.
I will leave it at that.
12:00
I will comment on and ask questions about recommendations 34 and 35 on “Structures”. We have heard a lot of positive things today about the holistic approach, multi-agency working and all the rest. It certainly seems from what the report found—many of us knew this already—that people who have been incarcerated and so were, in a sense, out of sight and out of mind, were not being met at the gate.
I commend you for including the question of a national service in the consultation. I do not want centralisation of services, but it seems to me that the fragmentation and silo mentality that have applied so far have failed. I do not know whether that is the responsibility of the community justice authorities. There are competing demands and I think that we still have relatively junior people making housing decisions based simply on housing criteria rather than their also having had regard to wider issues. Through another body, I have had experience of that just within the past week.
We must make it clear that people must be supported in housing and accommodation when they leave prison, rather than just given a house. That could be the worst thing to do for someone, because people often need support when they leave prison.
You state on page 5 of your letter:
“We are keen to engage in an open dialogue with partners on what should replace the current arrangements”.
You also say:
“The consultation period is likely to last until spring 2013, with an announcement on the way forward being made later that year, and introduction of new arrangements in 2015/16.”
Given that a report can often build up an impetus, is that date for introduction soon enough? What will happen in the interim period? Is there a danger of slippage?
That is a fair point, which I accept. However, there is complexity because of the number of agencies involved and our having to balance how we achieve some national cohesion as well as local delivery, which you correctly pointed out. As I said to your colleague Sandra White, we believe that the status quo is not tenable, and Elish Angiolini has made that clear. We have had initial discussions on the issue with COSLA and have touched on it with the ADSW.
Its going out to consultation at the end of the year is probably the earliest that it can be done. Because of the complexities, we must allow the consultation to continue until spring 2013. I am open to suggestions about how to truncate or accelerate the process, but given what is already going on in health and social care, we must recognise that there are already significant pressures and that we must take the time to get the process right.
I am happy to give you an undertaking that we will do that, if we feel that the consultation process could be accelerated without jeopardising democratic input or recognition of the complexities or difficulties involved. However, I do not want to drive forward without ensuring that we bring people with us so that we get the best possible outcome. We must remember, when undertaking structural change, that we are dealing with people who have complex needs, and that staff have to continue to do their day job as well as cope with changes in their roles or changes for those with whom they work. I can give John Finnie that commitment on the consultation timescale. We feel that it is manageable, but we will monitor the situation as it goes along.
Okay.
With regard to the three stages—where we are at the moment, the interim period after the consultation, and the period thereafter—who is responsible for an individual prisoner’s overall wellbeing when they are released?
That is a multi-agency responsibility; for example, some aspects of a released prisoner’s wellbeing will be to do with health problems, whether addiction or mental health. Such prisoners will also have statutory entitlement to housing, which is a matter for the local authority housing department. We must try to bring all such functions together without creating unnecessary bureaucracy. This is about problem solving; it is part of the ethos of progressing criminal justice in respect of how the courts solve problems, and in respect of the Prison Service’s responsibility for solving problems. I do not foresee a scenario in which one agency would be given total responsibility for dealing with prisoners’ issues, because some matters will remain the responsibility of other agencies.
We must create the structures that bring together all the people who have an input in housing and health—those who are dealing with mentoring, monitoring and support. The question is about how we create those structures. We are going out to consultation on that because we are open about where it is going—other than to say that the status quo is not tenable. One of the options will be what has been suggested by the Angiolini commission, although I understand and accept why that option is not currently favoured by even COSLA or the ADSW. There will have to be alternatives.
Do you accept that the situation could remain fragmented because of competing demands among the various bodies? For example, should local authorities rewrite their housing allocation policies, or are they robust enough as they are? Sandra White mentioned the integration of health and social care that is taking place at the moment, which is not without its challenges.
What works best for the criminal justice system is to get all partners round the table. In the community safety partnerships in Glasgow, which have been replicated in West Lothian, Stirling and other areas, we have around the table police officers, people who deal with young offenders, youth workers and people who deal with housing matters. They look at what has happened, who caused it, how it came about and consider what the solution might be.
I think that the future, in terms of dealing with such individuals, will be our recognising that a multitude of people are required to deal with them. Each individual is different, whether through drug addiction, alcohol problems, personality disorder, health problems or mental health problems. We must move away from the silo mentality that John Finnie mentioned and instead have people working in partnership. Will the problem be best solved by creating a single silo or is it better to work at partnership level? All the things that seem to be working remarkably well in addressing offending, as opposed to dealing with reoffending and the consequences of offending, show that the partnership approach works best.
I would like to conclude there. It has been a very thorough question-and-answer session. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their attendance.