Reducing Reoffending (Prisoners’ Assets)
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-05789, in the name of Mary Fee, on using prisoners’ assets to reduce reoffending. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the decision of the Scottish Prison Service to invest £70,000 in a pilot through-care service in HMP Greenock to tackle reoffending and assist offenders in settling back into their communities; considers that reoffending costs the Scottish economy £3 billion per year; understands that there is no single solution to tackling reoffending; regrets that 61% of prisoners with a sentence of less than one year will reoffend within two years of release, and hopes that using prisoners’ assets to reduce reoffending by engaging the prisoners with their families, by working with their skills, hobbies, employment history and educational outcomes will provide better rehabilitation and educational programmes.
12:34
I am delighted to hold my first members’ business debate on a topic that I have raised on numerous occasions in the Parliament and about which I feel strongly.
Before I move on to the substance of my speech, I will thank a couple of people for their assistance in researching the debate: Dr Nancy Loucks; Charlie Martin; members of the cross-party group on families affected by imprisonment; and the offenders and families I have met. I also say a special thank you to Gareth Brown, Dan Cairns and Lucy Connelly for their tireless research and support in these matters. Without the support and help of all those people, I doubt that we would be having the debate, which brings a focus to supporting families and offenders and aims to develop new ideas about reducing reoffending.
As the title of the motion suggests, I have a different ideology about how we can reduce reoffending. All prisoners have assets other than financial or material assets, which can be anything from educational qualifications and work experience to hobbies and interests, family and friends. As one prison officer pointed out to me, someone—a mother or a father—will have loved and cared for the offender at some point. How do we recreate that bond? I accept that, for different reasons, some families break down, which leads to bonds being broken, but when there is still a chance for the relationship to work, we must utilise that asset in the interests of the offender, their family and society.
Research shows that supporting the family, as well as working with the offender, helps to break the cycle of offending. As well as keeping the offender out of prison in the future, it can support the children of offenders who, statistically, are more likely to end up in a life of crime. The children of prisoners are a group in society that is often overlooked, even though more children will face a parent’s imprisonment than will face their parents’ divorce. They are silent victims who—I repeat—are more likely to enter the criminal justice system.
A study by Joseph Murray of the University of Cambridge in 2007 found that the imprisonment of a parent predicted that a boy would be involved in antisocial behaviour and would suffer from mental health problems during the course of his life—in some cases, that continued well into adulthood and even up to the age of 48. The same study found that 48 per cent of boys who were separated from a parent because of imprisonment between birth and the age of 10 ended up in prison as an adult. Therefore, looking at families as an asset and maintaining bonds can play a crucial role in reducing reoffending.
The motion welcomes the investment of £70,000 in a pilot throughcare programme in HMP Greenock. Effective and well-established throughcare is an essential service if reoffending is to be tackled. At a recent meeting with ex-offenders in Glasgow, I heard about the lack of joined-up working among different agencies that should be better at supporting newly released prisoners. One of the men said that throughcare should start as soon as someone who has been sentenced enters the prison estate.
Another major issue that came out of the time that I spent with ex-offenders was the lack of meaningful activity in prison. Over the past month or so, I have highlighted concerns that I have on the issue, which are to do with incentivising activity, joined-up working and the purpose of the activity that is undertaken. Crucially, that is what my motion aims to address and highlight. Are prisoners being offered work or educational courses that suit their needs, that utilise the skills that they possess and which improve on the knowledge that many prisoners have?
It has been said to me more than once that some prisoners are among the most entrepreneurial people that one could meet. I do not doubt that for a minute, but the issue is how we can use that lawfully and for the benefit of the offender. Creating a system of meaningful activity around the assets of prisoners is seen as a costly process, but we should look at what reoffending costs Scotland socially and economically.
One ex-offender whom I met who had previously worked in finance ended up in an art class, as that is all that was on offer. How is that the best way of rehabilitating prisoners? I am sure that that was not an isolated case, but given that the offender in question had financial qualifications and that the majority of the prison population have trouble with reading, writing and numeracy, would not utilising his assets have benefited other prisoners as much as it would have benefited the offender himself?
While I am on the subject of mentoring, I would like to welcome the funds that the Scottish Government has announced to establish a national network of mentoring schemes. I have witnessed the work that the Wise Group carries out through its routes out of prison project, and I am delighted that it can carry on with its good work. On my visits to prisons, I have seen at first hand the terrific work that is undertaken to give prisoners work experience. In Greenock prison, I was interviewed for the prison radio station by a young man who had never previously thought about sitting in front of a microphone. I was extremely impressed by the questions that he posed on the spot and how he took to questioning a politician. Taking part in the course had started a passion for him. As I listened to that bright young man, I could hear how he wanted to change and better himself, yet had never thought that he could.
Projects that give confidence to an offender are required and essential for someone to turn their back on offending, as long as all the other dots are joined up. Everyone has a history and a story to tell. How we tap into those positive aspects of someone's background can offer change to that person and their community. A greater holistic approach is essential for a population with all manner of mental health problems. I can imagine that the right-wing types and their press will view this approach as a “hug a hoodie” type of soft justice, but we know that the current system is not working. When the country spends £128 million per year on reducing reoffending, which costs us £3 billion, we have to look at other means of tackling the crisis, which affects families and communities across my region and the country as a whole.
I hope that the points and concerns that I have raised can feed into our justice system, and I look forward to hearing from other members. The debate is only a small part of what the cross-party group on families affected by imprisonment set out to achieve. I hope that many members will consider coming and feeding back to the group ideas on how we support families on the outside.
12:41
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I congratulate Mary Fee on securing this debate. I know that she has a special interest in the issue and I pay tribute to her tenacity.
As I mentioned in last week’s debate, reoffending and rehabilitation are something that I, too, feel very passionately about. Mary Fee mentioned the throughcare service being piloted at Greenock prison. That is, indeed, a fantastically innovative project. I would like to quote from a meeting at which Mary Fee was also present, where the prison services said:
“It is widely recognised that offenders frequently find it difficult to successfully return to their communities and avoid reoffending when released from prison. The SPS is continually exploring ways to additionally support prisoners after their liberation, for the benefit of both offenders and the communities which they return to.”
That is very important: it is not just the prisoners but their communities and society as a whole who benefit from these fantastic, innovative ideas. The goal of HMP Greenock is to sustain the unique relationship between prison officers and prisoners—an important subject that I also raised in last week’s debate. I believe that they know each other best. That is what is stated in the innovative project—that prison officers get involved in the attempt to build the lives of prisoners when they are released into their communities. I am delighted that a number of the agencies mentioned by Mary Fee, in both the Government and the third sector, are working together on this fantastic project.
Mary Fee mentioned the mentoring service, which is something that I also feel passionately about. To tackle reoffending, £7.7 million has been spent on a network of mentoring schemes throughout the country. I want to give an example from one of the projects, called Includem, in my own area of greater Glasgow. I will not give any personal details; just a couple of soundbites about what has happened.
This story is about a chap called Andrew and how for many years he had been in and out of prison, almost as though there were a revolving door. The first thing he said was,
“If I hadn’t had Includem, I’d probably still be fighting and picking up charges.”
Andrew came from the sort of situation that Mary Fee has just described. I will not call his background dysfunctional, but he had a home life that was not the norm as we would probably see it, and his family relationships really suffered because of that and the young man got involved in gangs and alcohol and was on the wrong side of the fence and the law—whatever we would want to call it. Once he was in prison again, Includem became involved and involved him in a mentoring scheme. Since he has been released from prison, he has had no further charges; he has been in no trouble at all. His family have all been helped to get on with their lives. Andrew says now that he is really looking forward to the future.
We in this Parliament should be proud of the introduction of those innovative types of rehabilitation. As I have said on many occasions, we can lock everyone up, but it is no good for them or for society outwith.
I thank Mary Fee for lodging her motion and I congratulate her on her first members’ business debate, which is very worthy. I hope that we can all work together, no matter what our political party. This is not about parties; it is about making sure that young people and others have a life when they come out of prison and that communities benefit from that life.
12:45
I, too, congratulate Mary Fee on bringing this important debate today. She is right to highlight the importance of breaking the cycle of reoffending, for offenders and their families, and to put that challenge in a wider context. Mary Fee is also right to say that there is no single solution to the problem of reoffending, which remains relatively static and far too high. Using the interests and experience of prisoners and engaging with families have to be part of the way forward.
There has rightly been concern about the lack of enough purposeful activity in Scotland’s prisons. An average of 21 hours a week is simply not acceptable, and Hugh Monro was right when he said that the purpose of sending offenders to prison in the first place is being undermined. That needs to be addressed.
It is equally vital that work continue after an offender has been released. Every prison governor and every third sector organisation that I have met has made the same point: whether released prisoners are sent back to prison for reoffending will depend most on what they do, where they go and what company they keep in the first few days and weeks after their release. That is why Prison Service support for throughcare services is vital and to be welcomed, and why agencies such as Includem and Families Outside are important, too.
Engagement with families is equally critical, as Mary Fee said. The charity Families Outside found that offenders are six times more likely to reoffend if they lose contact with their families. Therefore, support for that contact and linking it to resettlement are clearly of wider benefit.
In my area, achieving that engagement with families will be much harder because of the decision to close Aberdeen prison and replace it with a prison an hour away from the city, at Peterhead. HMP Grampian is supposed to be community facing, and I have no doubt that its first governor, Jim Farish, and his team will work very hard to fulfil that remit. However, it is hard to be community facing from the other end of the A90. If we are serious about engagement with families, it is not enough to say so, or even to fund pilot projects. The strategic decisions about Scotland’s prisons have to reflect that priority too, and in Aberdeen’s case an opportunity has been missed.
If family contacts are critical for offenders in general, that is even truer for young offenders. The lack of purposeful activity has been a particular issue for young offenders at Polmont and Cornton Vale, and I hope that this week’s announcement on Polmont will produce a significant increase in investment from the Scottish Government. I welcome the engagement of Education Scotland.
When I visited Polmont last year, I was struck by the commitment of staff and the work that was being done to address the poor communication skills of many young men in prison. Research suggests that 60 per cent of young people who come into contact with the justice system have communication problems. Extra education classes will not work if young offenders are not first enabled to take advantage of them by improving their communication skills.
The work done at Polmont is such that it has earned prison officers and national health service staff the giving voice partnership award from the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, yet only 15 hours a week of one-to-one speech therapy are available at Polmont, and that is simply not enough. This debate is about offenders getting support during and after their imprisonment, in order to resettle in their communities. I believe that speech therapy is one tool that can play an important role in enabling that to happen, and I hope that the minister will indicate that that is also the view of the Scottish Government.
12:49
Mary Fee’s first members’ business debate is on a cause well chosen, and I congratulate her on it. I welcome the opportunity to participate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Her Majesty’s Prison Greenock deals with the majority of offenders sentenced in the west of Scotland, so I am interested in many of the projects that are designed to tackle reoffending and to help reintegrate offenders into the community.
It is clear that much more needs to be done to tackle reoffending. As the motion states,
“the problem costs the Scottish economy £3 billion per year”
and although the Scottish Government is able to say truthfully enough that reconviction rates are at their lowest level for a decade—that may indeed be true—the minister will know that the rates have barely dropped in that time and that more than 45 per cent of all prisoners go on to reoffend within a year.
The Scottish Government spends £128 million a year on reducing reoffending, compared with nearly twice that amount on punishing offenders. In that context, we must all recognise that a £70,000 pilot, although welcome, is a drop in the ocean. Nevertheless, I welcome the pilot and commend the Scottish Prison Service for placing greater emphasis on throughcare services.
It is widely acknowledged that offenders find it challenging to return successfully to their communities, and it is perhaps unreasonable to expect an individual who has been marginalised from society and subsequently locked up to immediately adapt to the realities of finding housing—getting a roof over their head is crucial in the first instance—before applying for benefits and, one would hope, securing employment on release. In addition, we know that many offenders have drug and alcohol problems, which create additional challenges that they must face.
The pilot strikes me as common sense. It establishes a point of contact between an offender and a named individual and, importantly, it manages the transition from prison to release into the community. Throughcare is routinely available only to offenders on longer sentences, meaning that short-term prisoners who are often in and out of prison for the equivalent of a longer sentence slip through the net. I understand that the pilot will provide support for prisoners who volunteer for the scheme, regardless of their sentence.
In some ways, Scotland has some catching up to do. In England and Wales, Chris Grayling has said that the United Kingdom Government wants all but the highest risk prisoners to have a dedicated mentor on release from prison. Interestingly, that will see the use of private and voluntary sector groups, who are funded on a payment-by-results basis, which is something that I hope the Scottish Government will explore. As we heard yesterday during the Queen’s speech, the UK Government intends to introduce such a scheme in England. A good place to start would be to listen to a detailed interview that I heard this morning on Radio 4 with the voluntary project in England that has been doing just that and whose initiatives have been evaluated as a success.
We will see further legislation to tackle reoffending south of the border. That will mean that all offenders released from prison will receive at least 12 months’ statutory supervision. That must not be dismissed as a “hug a hoodie” strategy. Anything that ultimately integrates people back into society and reduces reoffending is what we hope will be a consequence of the system.
We must look at providing throughcare services to all prisoners. Yesterday, we heard—as Lewis Macdonald said—about an Education Scotland programme to be rolled out at Polmont, which is to be welcomed. However, those projects should be offered across the prison estate alongside other measures to tackle reoffending.
On other measures, the Scottish Conservatives have been calling for the introduction of a working week for prisoners to better tackle illiteracy and the lack of employable skills among offenders. We have also talked about the end to automatic early release—irrespective of whether we at one time introduced it, albeit that we were set to repeal it—which my party has long campaigned for. That would mean that offenders spend more time in prison being punished but, de facto, they would also spend more time being rehabilitated before the post-prison mentoring programme that we advocate. More needs to be done, and I welcome the Scottish Government’s acknowledgement of that point.
12:53
I congratulate Mrs Fee on securing the debate and on her thoughtful speech. There is certainly much in the motion that is commendable.
Mary Fee has identified one of the major problems in the justice system: reoffending by short-term prisoners. The almost revolving door of entry into and exit from prison is not an easy nut to crack and, as the motion concedes and Lewis Macdonald mentioned, there is “no single solution” to the problem.
I have been in the fortunate position of sitting on the Justice Committee and the Public Audit Committee when reoffending has been discussed. I have also had a couple of tours around HMP Edinburgh, where I have talked to staff and prisoners and sought their views.
It is rather sad that for re-education, working on life skills and preparing prisoners for life on the outside generally, the prisoner needs to be inside for quite a bit longer than six months or a year to see results.
The lifestyles, when they have their freedom, of many people who serve short-term sentences are chaotic. Drug and alcohol dependency—as Jackson Carlaw pointed out—and lack of literacy and numeracy skills are impediments to prisoners who would benefit from some form of education and training. Time is needed to work with those prisoners on their underlying problems before we even think about such things as vocational courses, either within or outside prison.
That is where the problems with short-term prison sentences come in. Nowhere in the prison system—as far as I have seen—is anyone saying that effective training can be provided for someone who is serving a sentence of six months. That is not just because there may in some cases be a resource issue in the prison, but because there is not enough time to work effectively with the prisoner.
Another issue is that some prisoners have no interest in attending educational courses because they hated their schooldays. The staff at HMP Edinburgh have had real difficulties in engaging with those prisoners and getting them into classrooms, which reminds me of the old saying, “Better one volunteer than 10 pressed men.”
On my trips around HMP Edinburgh with David McLetchie, we saw some excellent examples of training and education opportunities, but prisoners will lose the skills that they gain if there is no opportunity for them to expand their knowledge and skill set when they walk through the gates to freedom.
Prisoners require help when they are released. There is no point in releasing a prisoner at 5 pm on a Friday afternoon, particularly if they are not local to the area and have nowhere to sleep. They are likely to be met by the local drug dealer at the prison door, or to end up looking for help from the so-called friends who were part of their life before imprisonment and most likely encouraged them into crime. The chances are that they will be back inside the cell by the end of the weekend, and no amount of retraining or education will help that situation.
In the opinion of many people, the answers to those questions lie not just inside prison, but outside, too. Local authorities, the third sector and voluntary organisations all have parts to play. Many of the problems that short-term offenders face can be dealt with by using nothing more than common sense. On release, a prisoner should have access to accommodation and be registered with a general practitioner’s surgery, and know whom to speak to for information and advice.
If prisoners are to be reintegrated into society, they need self-respect. I have met people in my constituency who have followed a path to prison since their schooldays. If that is not a depressing thought, I do not know what is. Education at an appropriate level for each prisoner will always be the key, otherwise we will endure a situation in which there is an ever-revolving door for prisoners who look on an 18-month sentence as nothing more than an inconvenience.
12:57
I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s members’ debate on reducing reoffending, and I congratulate Mary Fee on bringing the debate to the chamber.
The Audit Scotland report, “Reducing reoffending in Scotland”, which was published in November 2012, states with regard to reoffending that
“Rates have remained relatively static ... over the past”
decade. I felt very uneasy when I read that, because it suggests that there has been no improvement in the past decade. The report also states that 30 per cent of offenders reoffend within one year. The fact that the rate has been static for a decade and that 30 per cent of offenders are reoffending must lead us to ask where we have failed them.
One of the most striking comments in the Audit Scotland report is that
“there is a mismatch between what is currently being delivered and what is known to be effective.”
We know what is effective, but we are not doing anything about it. That rings alarm bells about why we have failed so far.
One of the report’s major recommendations calls for
“more flexibility to meet local needs and priorities”.
I hope that the project in HMP Greenock will go on to meet the local needs of prisoners and their families. Engagement with families is important, because many families abandon offenders due to shame, stigma or other issues.
The cost of reoffending to Scotland’s economy has been estimated at approximately £3 billion a year. However, the real costs can be calculated not in money, but in social deprivation and the shortcomings of society that result.
The use of prisoners’ assets to fund programmes is a way of getting extra resources, but I believe that the quality of the programmes is much more important. Mary Fee was correct to highlight the role of family and friends in ensuring that ex-offenders get the kind of support that they might not have had for a long time.
I want to make a point about offenders from minority communities. Historically, people from such communities who have been in prison have far greater stigma attached to them. Their families are usually in denial and will not accept the fact that a member of the family has been in prison. The usual excuse for a person not being around because of that is, “Oh, he’s gone home to visit relatives,” which could refer to anywhere in the world. Although that may seem like a good excuse at the time, it does their kin no justice.
A person who finds themselves in difficulties, who offends and is prosecuted and incarcerated, needs support. I suggest that we emphasise that not only families but appropriate agencies support those people—in particular, people from minority communities and first-time offenders—in order to try to ensure that they re-engage with society and can play a full role in it.
I am grateful to Mary Fee for the debate today. I knew some prisoners when I was a councillor and I found that they benefited from receiving support. I wish the project in HMP Greenock and everybody involved in it the best of success.
13:01
I congratulate Mary Fee on obtaining her first members’ business debate. Appropriately, it is on a subject that she pursues tenaciously. I know that she will quite soon meet the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and that she will meet the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, so I expect her to be back in the chamber with further comments on the issue. She has raised important issues in a thoughtful way, which is helpful. I also thank other members for their thoughtful contributions.
In her motion and speech, Mary Fee rightly welcomed the £70,000 investment for HMP Greenock this year to pilot a new approach to throughcare services. Sandra White and Hanzala Malik also acknowledged and welcomed the good work that is done there. I therefore know that members will be delighted to hear that that investment will increase to £1.3 million next year for the construction of two new community integration units: one for men and one for women. The existing work is being built on, which is very important because we know that purpose, meaning and positive family relationships, which are important assets for anyone, are particularly important for shaping and supporting new beginnings for people who leave prison.
Mary Fee referenced the debate around meaningful or purposeful activity for prisoners, and one or two other members also referred to it. I agree with the Justice Committee’s report on its inquiry into purposeful activity in prisons, which was published on 28 March 2013, that purposeful activity in prisons is an important part of rehabilitation because it can provide a work ethic and give structure to the prisoner’s day, it can give them a chance to build and enhance existing skills and hobbies, and it can better prepare them for rejoining our communities in a way that gives them the best chance of making a positive contribution and staying away from crime. I do not have the statistics to hand, but I think that we know that people who leave prison and go on to find work form the group that is least likely to reoffend. It is important that we see that link all the way through.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to reducing reoffending, because we are all individuals. Our approach to offenders’ rehabilitation, whether it is while they are in custody or in the community, needs to be person centred and linked to individual need, and it must build on offenders’ strengths and assets. Mary Fee is right to remind us that the word “asset” does not always have to refer to money—it is also about the assets that an individual can bring, which are often overlooked in this debate.
The vital work that is required cannot be the sole responsibility of the criminal justice system, as the wider services that are required are not just in the criminal justice system. It is crucial to work with offenders as soon as they are in custody, but Lewis Macdonald and other members, including Jackson Carlaw, raised the problem of the services that are available after a prisoner’s release. Much of the support and many of the services that require to be in place were mentioned by Jackson Carlaw. They include suitable housing and timely access to addiction services, which is of particular concern to me, as the minister who is responsible for drugs policy. That has to be planned, and needs must be met by services on the other side of the prison gates.
Historically, there has been a joining-up problem that needs to be overcome, which is why it is important for us to begin to highlight the whole issue of throughcare. Services in our communities will be vital, and communities should understand that they have a broader role to play.
Hanzala Malik spoke about the stigma attaching to people from particular minority backgrounds; stigma can attach to all people leaving prison and can make it difficult for them to be reintegrated into their communities. There needs to be a bit of community learning about that. The discussions about that might be difficult in some areas, but they are important.
People who work in mental health services, addiction services, employment and housing all have fundamental roles to play, and they have to open their doors. It is crucial that the whole public sector accepts its part in the rehabilitation of offenders—I will return to Jackson Carlaw’s comments about what is happening south of the border.
Lewis Macdonald asked specifically about speech therapy. Some work is taking place on that at Polmont. The Government recognises the need for specialist interventions where they are appropriate, and those form part of the approach that is being developed to create a skills and learning environment in Polmont.
Colin Keir highlighted some of the challenges around short sentences. It can be difficult to put in place meaningful interventions during very short prison sentences.
We have all heard stories and anecdotal evidence about unfortunate release dates or times. We know that that happens. Those are important things to take on board and address.
I return to the public sector versus private sector point. Jackson Carlaw commended the approach of the UK Government in this regard. As he might expect, we are open to constructive suggestions from elsewhere—wherever that “elsewhere” may be—but I gently point out to members that the payment by results programme was introduced after a consultation of only six weeks, and it is receiving widespread criticism. The jury is currently out on it, if Jackson Carlaw will pardon the pun.
I understand the point—the Scottish Government, too, has been happy to embrace new ideas in public health that have perhaps not had a welter of evidence underpinning them—but the initiative is a new one. Might the minister take the time to hear the interview that took place this morning with the voluntary organisation that has been implementing the initiative down south? It has had the initiative’s evidence base tested, and it believes that it has worked.
I have about 35 seconds left in my speech, so I am not able to deal with that now.
A number of members commended the change fund and the financial commitment to it. The mentoring service has been acknowledged and recognised by everybody. We are also working with the Scottish Prison Service in Edinburgh, Perth, Cornton Vale and Greenock prisons to improve the way in which short-term prisoners’ needs are identified, which is important.
As the minister in charge of drugs policy, I regularly discuss the live matter of the prevalence of substance misuse and the particular problems that it creates on exit from prison. We have still not got that completely right. Part of our answer to that is the naloxone programme, but I recognise that it cannot be the only answer.
I commend the work of Jim Kerr, the governor of HMP Greenock, and his staff, who are piloting the whole new approach for prison officers. Support officers will provide holistic case management for short-term offenders, and will work with them to create a plan for release. We are all behind that project, and we all want to make it work. We all want to see whether we can introduce it more widely. The outcome of the pilot will be extremely important; it will provide lessons for us and it will inform roll-out of the approach across the prison estate.
This has been an interesting and thought-provoking debate. Thank you for your forbearance, Presiding Officer, in allowing me to take a few extra seconds. I thank all members for their speeches.
13:09
Meeting suspended.
14:30
On resuming—