Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 15 March 2012

15 Mar 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Offenders (Rehabilitation)

McLetchie, David Con Lothian Watch on SPTV

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 Government down south.

In his last annual report, our chief inspector of prisons noted that, apart from

“punishment ... and the need to secure offenders during their sentence ... the most important reason for sending offenders to prison is to prepare them for release back in to the community; the foremost aim must be to reform and rehabilitate and so reduce the risks of re-offending.”

That view is admirable and was central to the great penal reform debates of the 19th century. We must believe that people are capable of redemption and of turning their lives around, and we must do what we can to assist that process, even if we are often disappointed and frustrated when good intentions come to naught.

As members know, the prisons inspectorate reviewed Cornton Vale prison and young offenders institution this year and concluded that there was not

“sufficient purposeful activity and rehabilitative work available”

for prisoners. I acknowledge that the Scottish Government and the Justice Committee have followed up that comment, but it is right to take the opportunity to examine the challenges and opportunities—we see them from that observation—that modernising the delivery of rehabilitation services presents in the prison estate and in the community.

As others have said, the prison population in Scotland has increased steadily. I whole-heartedly welcome that as a factor in the fall in the crime rate to a 30-year low, even if the Scottish Government refuses to acknowledge that connection. However, I would be the first to say that the debate is not about sentencing policy and that sentencing people to prison cannot be just about locking them up and public safety.

Rehabilitation and work programmes are essential, as is an integrated approach, so that no artificial barrier is placed between rehabilitation programmes in prison, rehabilitation’s role in community sentencing and its continuing function of dealing with offenders on completion of their sentences. We must also bear it in mind that an essential part of rehabilitation is assisting prisoners and those who are on community sentences to tackle their problems with addictions and their educational shortfalls in literacy and numeracy, as part of the road to redemption and rehabilitation.

Community payback schemes need to operate not just as an alternative to imprisonment in which the public can have confidence, but as a component that can be bolted on to an on-going programme of support and rehabilitation when a sentence has been completed. A significant number of charities and voluntary and private sector organisations already work on the rehabilitation of offenders, such as Apex Scotland and Sacro. Their contribution needs to be encouraged and supported when positive results are being achieved.

Effective rehabilitation not only benefits the offender and his family but is a sensible investment for society. We have often heard of the £40,000 per annum that providing bed and board for a prisoner costs the taxpayer, but equally disturbing is the cost of an unproductive lifetime that is spent on benefits if we do not help people to turn around their lives and engage meaningfully in our society.

The irony is that, although solid financial savings to society and us as taxpayers can be quantified from the rehabilitation of offenders, funding to achieve the objective is in short supply. That is why investment in social impact bonds is particularly important in financing the role that voluntary organisations and social enterprises can play in such work.

The bonds are flexible on delivery—they can be adjusted for a range of providers to co-operate to try to achieve outcomes and can encourage innovation in service delivery, so long as positive outcomes are met. That is more than just a modern interpretation of philanthropy; it is a vehicle to recognise the genuine benefits that can accrue from money that is injected into and invested in this important area. I will say more about that in my summation.

I support the motion in Alison McInnes’s name. I do not share her pessimistic view of the amendment that the cabinet secretary lodged; I am prepared to accept in good faith his assurances and to support his amendment, too.

10:54