Communication Support Needs (Young Offenders)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-7235, in the name of Willie Coffey, on addressing young offenders communication support needs.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament acknowledges the evidence presented by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and supported by the Prison Reform Trust in respect of the high levels of communication support needs (CSN) among young offenders; recognises the impact of CSN on levels of offending behaviour and recidivism among young people and considers that unaddressed CSN create barriers to crime diversion and prevention initiatives, education, employment and rehabilitation; further recognises the impact effective communication support services, including speech and language therapy (SLT), can have on helping prevent young people from getting involved in offending behaviour and in managing and supporting their rehabilitation; is concerned that there is not a comprehensive communication support service throughout the Scottish justice system, with SLT consistently available only at Polmont Young Offenders Institute and Cornton Vale while offenders in other establishments receive SLT only by local arrangement despite evidence, for example, that at least 66% of young offenders have significant CSN, and believes that there is a strong case for a pilot CSN service for criminal justice services in a defined area of Scotland, such as the South West Scotland Criminal Justice Authority area, which covers the Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency, given that young offenders from Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway form the second largest geographical group in Polmont Young Offenders Institute, in order to determine the most effective and economic communication support service model for Scotland’s justice system, including an evaluation of the impact of the pilot on crime diversion and prevention, passage through the courts, engagement in rehabilitation and outcomes in terms of recidivism.
17:07
I welcome those who are attending this evening’s debate both in the chamber and the gallery. I acknowledge the difficulties that were caused by the opportunity to hold the debate becoming available at such short notice. I must also acknowledge, of course, the work on the issue by Kim Hartley and her colleagues at the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. Members may be aware that the college has organised what looks like a very worthwhile conference on the subject to be held at Polmont young offenders institution on 16 November. I am sure that the event will be helpful in identifying new ways forward.
At the heart of the debate is one of the big issues that faces us as we confront our current economic difficulties. The question is: if we prioritise services on which we have spent too little money in the past, could we save money and possibly even improve outcomes? The Scottish Prisons Commission reported that it costs more than £32,000 a year to keep someone in prison, and a staggering £200,000-plus per annum to keep a young person in a secure unit. Clearly, that sort of expenditure is best avoided, if at all possible.
That said, of the young people who are convicted and enter the prison estate—there were more than 4,000 in 2006-07—more than half will return to prison within two years. Why is that? What can we do to prevent such repeat expenditure on such a poor outcome in terms of protecting our communities? If I had the whole answer, I might be sitting where Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Community Safety, is sitting. The RCSLT has presented strong evidence that part of the solution—I emphasise that it is only part of the solution—lies in developing better insight about those who enter prison and in responding better to the challenges that they present.
This week, the Parliament addressed literacy in Scotland. Although our level of literacy compares favourably with that of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, that has to be balanced against the fact that, by international comparison, Scotland fails its children most when we look at children who live in areas of concentrated deprivation. The data that the royal college has presented show that, by the time they get to school, half of all children from disadvantaged communities have delayed or disordered speech and language development. What a challenge that must present to our teachers and our schools.
The situation is even more challenging for all of us when we look at those who enter the prison system. Members might recall the research that former Barlinnie prison governor Roger Houchin published in 2005, which revealed that half of Scotland’s prison inmates came from the most deprived 155 council wards out of a total of 1,000 wards, and that a quarter of all inmates came from the 53 most deprived wards. That is a staggering concentration that perhaps merited a more considered response than it got at the time.
The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has presented evidence to show that, in addition to coming disproportionately from deprived backgrounds, those who are in prison display a high concentration of comprehension and communication disorders. I know that most of the following figures have already been made available to members, but with members’ indulgence I would like to place them on the parliamentary record. More than 60 per cent of young people in the criminal justice system have a communication disability. In one United Kingdom institution, 23 per cent of those who were studied had comprehension problems and up to 73 per cent had difficulties in expressing themselves effectively. In 2003, 26 per cent of young men in Polmont young offenders institution had clinically significant communication impairment and 70 per cent had difficulties with literacy and numeracy.
More recently, in a parliamentary answer, the Scottish Prison Service stated that 64 per cent of women offenders and 90 per cent of prisoners in Polmont experience communication and literacy difficulties. Given that those levels are up to three times those of the general population, the identification of a link between communication and literacy difficulties and offending behaviour and imprisonment is not new or surprising. Such links are reflected in reports by Government and other agencies that go back over many years. It is also clear that such difficulties reinforce a cycle of poverty and offending and that that is concentrated in certain families and communities, with 65 per cent of boys with a convicted parent going on to offend.
It surely goes without saying that poor communication and literacy are fatal to the crime diversion and prevention initiatives and the improved education and employment that we must bring to bear if we are to break the cycle, yet despite some good practice, efforts to address the issues still appear to be very much under development in the Scottish criminal justice system. For example, in response to a parliamentary question, the SPS confirmed that it does not assess all prisoners for communication impairment or difficulties with literacy and numeracy. Given the high incidence of those problems among its inmates, I found that surprising, so I would be interested to hear the minister’s view on the issue.
The royal college and its partners argue that we need a whole-system response to the communication support needs of young offenders. That would include, for example, screening all young people who enter the criminal justice system, communication skills training for all professionals who work with young offenders with a communication disability, and a serious review of the impact of speech and language therapy on reducing reoffending. All parts of the justice pathway should be aware of communication support needs and have the skills to manage them.
In that connection, I was pleased to see the literacy strategy that was recently approved by the south-west Scotland community justice authority, which specifically recognises the value of speech and language development. An important issue that is often raised by practitioners is the need for continuity of involvement. It is no good to recognise and respond to a need when someone is in prison if the support is withdrawn or lost as soon as they leave.
Even at a time of financial stringency, the question might be not whether we can afford to improve our approach to the issue, but whether we can afford not to do that. As I said at the beginning of my speech, what is proposed might not be the whole answer, but it looks to me as though it should be a more significant part of our response. I commend the royal college for its persistence in pushing its case. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other members who are able to be here this evening and, of course, to the minister’s response.
17:14
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this evening’s members’ business debate on communication difficulties for young offenders, which has been brought to the chamber by Willie Coffey. I congratulate him on securing this evening’s debate, in which he highlights an important issue.
In reading the briefing for the debate, I was interested in the various statistics on people with communication difficulties. I had not realised the extent of the problem. Willie Coffey mentioned the statistic that 60 per cent of young offenders suffer from communication difficulties. One study shows that almost 70 per cent of young offenders in Polmont have literacy and numeracy problems. Those statistics are worrying. When we consider the problem, we can see why there is a link from it to reoffending. If people have communication difficulties, they will find it more difficult to interact with the environment around them. Obviously, if they are in prison, that is a hostile environment, which probably causes the situation to spiral. Interaction with the criminal justice system can be complicated for capable people, but people who have communication difficulties will feel more and more disfranchised. We can therefore understand why people reoffend when they leave the system.
Although we have had strong debates in recent months on sentencing policy, one issue on which all members agree is that the rates of reoffending are too high and we want to bring them down. Willie Coffey has identified an area in which there is potential to make progress on that. As he clearly outlined, there are budget constraints. In the coming months, the Government and all members will be lobbied strenuously by current recipients of budget amounts, who will make a case for why they should continue to receive funding. The clear point that they will have to demonstrate is that there are outcomes from the money that they receive. Willie Coffey has been able to demonstrate that there could be a case for investment in tackling the issues that he raises, which would reduce reoffending rates.
We need to assess properly the extent of the problem so that we can get an evidence base. We have some research, but we need more. We need research on the effects of the current programmes that operate at Polmont and Cornton Vale to find out whether it can be demonstrated that, after participation in such programmes, people are less likely to reoffend.
Willie Coffey has highlighted an interesting issue to the Parliament. If the Government and other parties consider the issue and give it the correct treatment, we might be able to address communication support needs in the prison and judicial systems and, I hope, to prevent some of the current entrants into that system from reoffending. That would have a positive impact not only on the individuals and their families, but on communities throughout Scotland.
17:18
I, too, congratulate Willie Coffey on securing the debate and on giving Parliament the opportunity to consider an important issue. I am pleased, notwithstanding the absence of the Liberal Democrats, that there appears to be a large amount of cross-party agreement on the issue.
We all agree that one primary function of our criminal justice system is to ensure that we properly rehabilitate offenders so that they break the cycle of reoffending. That is good for the individual, but it is also good for wider society. Given the high reoffending rates in Scotland, we are probably not getting close to where we need to be on effective rehabilitation. We all acknowledge the need to understand why so many youths end up in the criminal justice system.
According to the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, the environment in which people grow up can result in high levels of communication support needs. As the royal college says, offenders who have communication support needs are less receptive to the rehabilitation programmes that are on offer when they are in prison. That is clearly very concerning. We spend a significant amount of public funds on rehabilitation programmes, but if the royal college is correct they may be having a minimal impact because of the communication disabilities of some of the participants.
Funding is already tight and will get significantly tighter, so we must ensure that money is spent as wisely as possible. If there is any suggestion that rehabilitation schemes are not as effective as they might be because of other factors, it is important that we reprioritise our funding to ensure that those factors are addressed.
I have visited many prisons in the past few months, including Polmont young offenders institution. It has been apparent to me during those visits that a lot of good work to rehabilitate prisoners is taking place in Scotland’s prisons. However, given the high reoffending rates, we need to think carefully about the effectiveness of each scheme.
We welcomed the Scottish Government’s announcement in July that it would improve help for offenders and those at risk of offending to meet their learning and skills needs. Intervening at an early stage to address patterns of offending behaviour must be a priority. We must ensure that young people are re-engaged with the education process and we must help those who are already in the criminal justice system to develop their learning and skills so that they lead a life away from crime when they leave prison.
We need to go further and faster. Breaking the cycle of crime begins with the children of criminals who are locked up in prison. They are deprived of a parent through no fault of their own and should be a concern to us all. Schools, social services, and voluntary and faith groups should work hard together to divert young and first offenders away from criminality.
We must do more to tackle crime, particularly with regard to the rehabilitation that we offer and its effectiveness, so that we reduce reoffending rates. The motion and the evidence that has been presented by the royal college highlight a much larger problem. A wide range of rehabilitation schemes are on offer, but we do not know how effective each is at ensuring that criminals are rehabilitated and reintegrated into mainstream society.
I congratulate Willie Coffey on securing the debate and the royal college on highlighting this important issue. I hope that it is the start of a wider debate about the effectiveness of our rehabilitation schemes so that we can truly tackle the high reoffending rates in Scotland.
17:22
I apologise to Willie Coffey for missing his speech, but I had a very urgent piece of business that could be undertaken only at this time. I returned as soon as I could.
We face a very serious problem with regard to young people in prison. It is not just a question of their communication difficulties—a high percentage have become involved in drugs and many have mental health difficulties and problems with self-confidence. All those issues should be addressed in prison, but the problem is that prison is not designed to help young people who have educational difficulties or mental health issues. If one considers what happens from the point at which they are sentenced to jail to the moment they land in their cell, the whole process of sending somebody down is virtually designed to strip them of any self-confidence and feelings of individuality. It is a very sad story, and it strikes me that prison is not the best place to be doing this work.
The sooner we get more community sentencing—and more money and support for it—the better. It will then be possible to provide specialist educational and mental health help to the young men—mostly—and young women who need it. Young men who need help with drug or alcohol addiction can be put on drug treatment and testing orders at the same time as they are put on community service orders. That would save us money, as we could require and provide such services for less than the cost of putting the same person in prison.
I do not know how we will ever get around to looking at budgets in a different way, but we need to do that. If we are saving the Scottish Prison Service X amount of money by using community service orders, we should be able to provide that money for those orders, for DTTOs and for extra help with education or other needs that young people have. That is the way in which to reduce reoffending big time. It will work—people know that it works. I look forward to hearing the minister’s response to what everyone has said this evening.
17:26
I congratulate Willie Coffey on providing us with an opportunity in our Parliament to debate these important matters. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he set the scene for this evening’s debate and for his description of the extent of the problem, which is serious. I thank all the members who stayed to take part in the debate for their contributions, which—without exception—were highly positive and relevant.
The Scottish Government recognises the importance of providing as many opportunities to learn as we can to offenders while they are in custody and of maintaining that learning experience when prisoners go back into the community. Willie Coffey referred to the importance of throughcare and the difficulties of transition. Those problems are well understood and are difficult practically to solve in many cases.
Much is already being done in prisons. Having visited most of the prisons in Scotland—most of them more than once—I have had the opportunity to see that every prison is doing its best to provide prisoners with as much learning opportunity as possible. I say that with knowledge of the practical constraints in prisons of keeping people banged up and shunting them around within secure areas. Those are logistically difficult matters that must be planned and arranged. Inevitably, experiences may not be as extensive as anyone would like, but I pay tribute to governors, prison officers and all those who work in prisons for what they are doing.
Although this is not in the script, I say that we need to do far more. All of us recognise that, and this evening’s debate has provided us with a good opportunity to say it on a cross-party basis.
Polmont and Cornton Vale have been mentioned specifically, as they deal with young people and female offenders respectively. Those two prisons already do a great deal of work, in a variety of areas, to provide learning opportunities. Skills Development Scotland has appointed a full-time careers adviser to address the career needs of under-18s who are in custody. The post works between Polmont and Cornton Vale to ensure that all people who leave custody have a key worker from Skills Development Scotland in their local area, to address the problem of what happens when they leave the secure establishment and return to their community. Willie Coffey was right to ask whether the care just stops at that point. The post in question is just one post, but it is important. It involves one person receiving help from another person at a time that makes a difference to individuals.
Just a few weeks ago, I attended another engagement in relation to different work that has been done for female offenders, whereby key workers aim to help offenders with addiction problems—that has been mentioned by Robin Harper as being a facet of a number of difficulties that each offender has, including mental health problems, substance abuse and communication problems. They often all go together. Many people feel that communication difficulties and the inability not just to speak, read or write—although each of those are hugely important—but to express oneself at all, as well as difficulties with comprehension, can lead to frustration, anger, disillusionment or alienation, to feeling unable to advance into a career, training or apprenticeship and to being unable to make one’s life a positive experience, as those of us who are more fortunate have been able to do.
What is the chicken and what is the egg? Perhaps the communication problems lead to the addiction issues, which lead to the criminality. There is a very strong rationale for saying that. As James Kelly said, however, these are matters where there will always be a greater need for research.
James Kelly mentioned the hostile environment of prison. The issue is not simply about dealing with offenders in establishments; it is also about community payback and how we deal with offenders in the community. It is easier to assist offenders if they are doing community payback or community service—when they are outwith the confines of the four walls of a jail.
I am pleased that the national literacy action plan that was launched yesterday by my colleague Michael Russell makes specific reference to work that is being done in the Scottish Prison Service to refine a new literacy and numeracy screening tool for offenders. I learned from Miss Jan Green of NHS Forth Valley of the need for screening and of the practical difficulties that exist in that regard.
Responding to Willie Coffey’s specific point regarding the SPS assessment for literacy impairment, I can say that the Scottish Prison Service, in conjunction with Learning and Teaching Scotland, has developed a screening tool to identify the literacy and numeracy needs of sentenced individuals, which will become operational from August next year. The tool is also being considered for use in the community. That, too, is being worked on in a positive fashion.
Will there be a report on the back of that assessment and research on literacy in prisons?
I imagine that there will be one. The screening tool is to become operational from August next year—but, as I fully expect to be in this position from August next year, I give an undertaking that we will have an evaluation. I might be getting a wee bit ahead of myself—my aim is but to please.
I pay tribute to the work of all those involved in speech and language therapy work in Scotland, in particular those from the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, whose delegation I met on 10 February this year, alongside Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, Brigadier Hugh Monro, who has taken a close interest in the subject, and whose genuine human concern for the tragedies that lie behind almost every case of those who end up in those establishments is evident to anyone who has met him. Mary Turnbull, the chair of the royal college and service manager for NHS Forth Valley, was also present at that February meeting, along with Jan Green, to whom I have already referred. Kim Hartley, to whom Willie Coffey has paid tribute, was also present at the meeting.
I learned a lot from all those people, as did the brigadier. The meeting has perhaps paved the way for other positive developments—such as the conference—through increased awareness in the SPS of the importance of dealing with offenders’ communication problems and a better understanding that if such problems can be ameliorated and solved there might be a greater propensity for individuals to live crime-free, positive, normal and happy lives.
The debate has provided an excellent opportunity for us all to share what we have learned—there are certainly things that I did not know until fairly recently. Our having had the benefit of the expertise of individuals, some of whom I have referred to, and Willie Coffey’s having secured this debate mean that there is at least an opportunity for political parties and the politicians who represent the people of Scotland to respond more effectively to what is undoubtedly an important and serious problem, which affects far too many of the most disadvantaged people in our society.
Meeting closed at 17:35.