Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 15 March 2012
15 Mar 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Offenders (Rehabilitation)
No, I do not accept that. There is good reason to proceed with further pilots to assess the model. The Finance Committee has considered the issue and Audit Scotland has recommended that we have a look at the model. Therefore, we should push forward with it.
I will outline how social impact bonds work and explain why I think that they are a good idea. They are contracts with Government or local authorities, with a commitment to pay for agreed social outcomes. In the case of offenders, that would be lower rates of reoffending. On that basis, investment is raised and used to fund interventions, such as rehabilitation or work programmes. If the interventions succeed, the investors’ initial outlay is repaid by the Government, along with a financial return that is scaled in relation to the degree of success, which in the case of offenders would be exactly how much reoffending has reduced. That contrasts with Audit Scotland’s conclusion that
“The way criminal justice social work services are currently funded does not provide a financial incentive to change offenders’ behaviour”.
That is a reason why social impact bonds are a good way forward.
The payment-by-results approach has a couple of other benefits. First, there is no cost to the public purse unless reoffending is reduced. The Government pays only for the finished painting, rather than simply buying a canvas and a brush and hoping for the best. By bringing new money into the criminal justice system on the basis of repayment that is based on results, the Government can introduce a solid preventative spending initiative even at a time when the budget is stretched.
That leads directly to the second and more important reason why we believe that social impact bonds should be piloted in Scotland. Because the investment risk is kept squarely on private sector investors, there is a motivation for operators of the schemes to ensure that they succeed. That means that high standards are maintained and innovation is encouraged. In turn, that provides us with a further opportunity. As innovative new ideas are developed, spurred on by the payment-by-results model, the Government can monitor progress and, ultimately, adopt the most successful initiatives as examples of future best practice.
The use of social impact bonds can also help to shift the focus for the expert organisations. Rather than jump through bureaucratic red tape to secure grant funding, they can work co-operatively and move the focus of their efforts much more on to the social impact of their work.
Members might be aware of the pilot that is under way at Peterborough prison in which a number of organisations, including the YMCA and Supporting Others through Volunteer Action—SOVA—are using their expertise to provide support to short-term prisoners. The scheme still has a while left to run, as Chic Brodie said, before we see quantifiable evidence on its success, but the initial reports are largely positive. The report “Social Impact Bonds. The One Service. One year on”, which reflects on the first 12 months of the scheme, is a fascinating read and it highlights another benefit of the social impact bond model—the ability for service providers to identify and target individual needs in a far greater way than the existing programmes. The initial figures in the report suggest that 88 per cent of prisoners who were part of the programme in the first year underwent a successful assignment.
Given the current financial climate, which means that we must carefully evaluate our spending commitments, and the continuing high levels of reoffending in Scotland, this is surely an ideal time to move ahead with our own pilot schemes. Truth be told, I hoped that our motion would receive support from the Government benches, but Kenny MacAskill’s amendment suggests that that will not be the case. That is disappointing, not least because, as recently as last May, we seemed to be in agreement on the issue. Indeed, the following line was in the Scottish National Party’s manifesto:
“We will identify and commence three projects through which we can pilot Social Impact Bonds.”
That commitment is echoed in our motion, yet by lodging his amendment, the cabinet secretary seems to be pulling back from that position. When will he introduce a pilot scheme, and why will he not commit to the use of social impact bonds in prisons?
The use of social impact bonds would encourage greater innovation in our offender rehabilitation programmes. We should not miss this important opportunity finally to make some real progress on reducing reoffending. I hope that the Parliament will support our motion.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that successful rehabilitation is vital in order to reduce reoffending rates and support ex-offenders to turn their lives around; further recognises the role that voluntary organisations and social enterprises can play in delivering innovative and high quality programmes to address offending behaviour; believes that Social Impact Bonds have the potential to deliver a new approach to investment in rehabilitation, which incentivises innovation and rewards positive outcomes, and calls on the Scottish Government to pilot the Social Impact Bond model as a new approach to prison rehabilitation and reducing reoffending.
10:36
I will outline how social impact bonds work and explain why I think that they are a good idea. They are contracts with Government or local authorities, with a commitment to pay for agreed social outcomes. In the case of offenders, that would be lower rates of reoffending. On that basis, investment is raised and used to fund interventions, such as rehabilitation or work programmes. If the interventions succeed, the investors’ initial outlay is repaid by the Government, along with a financial return that is scaled in relation to the degree of success, which in the case of offenders would be exactly how much reoffending has reduced. That contrasts with Audit Scotland’s conclusion that
“The way criminal justice social work services are currently funded does not provide a financial incentive to change offenders’ behaviour”.
That is a reason why social impact bonds are a good way forward.
The payment-by-results approach has a couple of other benefits. First, there is no cost to the public purse unless reoffending is reduced. The Government pays only for the finished painting, rather than simply buying a canvas and a brush and hoping for the best. By bringing new money into the criminal justice system on the basis of repayment that is based on results, the Government can introduce a solid preventative spending initiative even at a time when the budget is stretched.
That leads directly to the second and more important reason why we believe that social impact bonds should be piloted in Scotland. Because the investment risk is kept squarely on private sector investors, there is a motivation for operators of the schemes to ensure that they succeed. That means that high standards are maintained and innovation is encouraged. In turn, that provides us with a further opportunity. As innovative new ideas are developed, spurred on by the payment-by-results model, the Government can monitor progress and, ultimately, adopt the most successful initiatives as examples of future best practice.
The use of social impact bonds can also help to shift the focus for the expert organisations. Rather than jump through bureaucratic red tape to secure grant funding, they can work co-operatively and move the focus of their efforts much more on to the social impact of their work.
Members might be aware of the pilot that is under way at Peterborough prison in which a number of organisations, including the YMCA and Supporting Others through Volunteer Action—SOVA—are using their expertise to provide support to short-term prisoners. The scheme still has a while left to run, as Chic Brodie said, before we see quantifiable evidence on its success, but the initial reports are largely positive. The report “Social Impact Bonds. The One Service. One year on”, which reflects on the first 12 months of the scheme, is a fascinating read and it highlights another benefit of the social impact bond model—the ability for service providers to identify and target individual needs in a far greater way than the existing programmes. The initial figures in the report suggest that 88 per cent of prisoners who were part of the programme in the first year underwent a successful assignment.
Given the current financial climate, which means that we must carefully evaluate our spending commitments, and the continuing high levels of reoffending in Scotland, this is surely an ideal time to move ahead with our own pilot schemes. Truth be told, I hoped that our motion would receive support from the Government benches, but Kenny MacAskill’s amendment suggests that that will not be the case. That is disappointing, not least because, as recently as last May, we seemed to be in agreement on the issue. Indeed, the following line was in the Scottish National Party’s manifesto:
“We will identify and commence three projects through which we can pilot Social Impact Bonds.”
That commitment is echoed in our motion, yet by lodging his amendment, the cabinet secretary seems to be pulling back from that position. When will he introduce a pilot scheme, and why will he not commit to the use of social impact bonds in prisons?
The use of social impact bonds would encourage greater innovation in our offender rehabilitation programmes. We should not miss this important opportunity finally to make some real progress on reducing reoffending. I hope that the Parliament will support our motion.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that successful rehabilitation is vital in order to reduce reoffending rates and support ex-offenders to turn their lives around; further recognises the role that voluntary organisations and social enterprises can play in delivering innovative and high quality programmes to address offending behaviour; believes that Social Impact Bonds have the potential to deliver a new approach to investment in rehabilitation, which incentivises innovation and rewards positive outcomes, and calls on the Scottish Government to pilot the Social Impact Bond model as a new approach to prison rehabilitation and reducing reoffending.
10:36
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02337, in the name of Alison McInnes, on prisons.10:26
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD)
LD
It is a pleasure to be able to move my motion. It is not often that we talk about reducing crime in the context of the services that are available for those ...
Chic Brodie (South Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
The member refers to social impact bonds. The RAND Europe report on planning and implementation of the social impact bond at Peterborough prison highlighted ...
Alison McInnes
LD
No, I do not accept that. There is good reason to proceed with further pilots to assess the model. The Finance Committee has considered the issue and Audit S...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill)
SNP
I thank Alison McInnes and my other Liberal Democrat colleagues for highlighting reoffending. I welcome their shared commitment to tackling this difficult is...
Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
As has been said, an effective justice system must protect communities, support victims and seek to rehabilitate offenders. That means that those who have be...
David McLetchie (Lothian) (Con)
Con
I thank Alison McInnes for bringing the subject to the chamber and for highlighting an imaginative approach to rehabilitation that is being piloted by the Go...
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
I, too, very much welcome the debate and the consensus across the chamber about reoffending. I will not reprise the figures and percentages, which have been ...
Mary Fee (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I thank the Liberal Democrats for bringing the issue to the chamber so that we can have a serious debate on how we address reoffending in Scotland. Reducing ...
Dennis Robertson (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
SNP
I thank Alison McInnes for bringing this debate to the chamber, and I hope that she is less disappointed after hearing the cabinet secretary’s reassurances t...
Graeme Pearson (South Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Unfortunately, I must begin my contribution by agreeing with Christine Grahame and acknowledging all that she said about the 218 project in Glasgow. It is an...
Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP)
SNP
First of all, I thank Alison McInnes for lodging a motion on what is an important issue. When we think about offenders, we find it all too easy to think pure...
Alison McInnes
LD
Will the member give way?
Roderick Campbell
SNP
I have limited time, so I cannot. When the Justice Committee was taking evidence on the Scottish Government’s budget, we highlighted the fact that the obliga...
David McLetchie
Con
This has been an interesting and useful debate with some excellent contributions. I thank Lewis Macdonald for pointing out that the social impact bond model ...
Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Lab
Alison McInnes reminded us of the poor outcomes: 62 per cent of prisoners reoffend, and the figure is even higher for young prisoners. Although there has bee...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
Justice debates in the chamber are frequently rumbustious and confrontational, and it is fair to say that, sometimes, they generate more heat than light. How...
Alison McInnes
LD
I do, indeed, welcome the cabinet secretary’s positive comments this morning, but I will press him a little on timescale. In 2009-10, the Scottish Prison Ser...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
As Roderick Campbell eloquently said, we must build on the evidence. The only scheme of which we are aware is in Peterborough and I am happy to look at it, a...
Jim Hume (South Scotland) (LD)
LD
I welcome the opportunity to sum up what has been an important debate that was led very ably by Alison McInnes on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. The debate...