Hansard

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 been a little progress, we have a long way to go.

Christine Grahame reminded us eloquently that we debated the issue back in the first session of Parliament. Indeed, one of the initiatives of which I was most proud as justice minister was the 218 centre for which we got funding. It is a matter of some regret that that unique and successful Scottish centre has not been replicated for men, or for other women. The cabinet secretary might like to take another look at that. We will see what the Angiolini commission comes up with—I hope that it supports the centre.

As Dennis Robertson from the SNP and my colleague Lewis Macdonald indicated, reoffending is a complex issue. We must begin by understanding the needs of each individual prisoner and the barriers that they face in addressing their reoffending. As Lewis Macdonald said, it is clear that being close to home and family is important, as is tackling problems such as drugs and alcohol. We need to address not only illiteracy, which Graeme Pearson mentioned, but communication difficulties more generally. Areas such as education and the acquisition of skills need improvement, and we need to address all the barriers to effective reintegration into the community.

Scotland’s futures forum held a seminar on the innovative impact of social impact bonds, which, as Lewis Macdonald reminded us, was a pilot initiated by Labour at Westminster and continued by the coalition Government. The futures forum noted that prevention was often the first to suffer cuts in times of austerity, so SIBs were a way in which we might leverage in funds. However, it urged caution in that if there is to be a return to investors of between 3 and 13 per cent depending on the outcomes, we need to be very clear about those outcomes. It called for clarity on the goals.

One perceived advantage of the social impact bond is that it can bring together multiple agencies. An individual who has not only the core problems caused by drug or alcohol but literacy and communication problems, housing problems and employment problems can be treated holistically. Under the recovery framework, drug services should really be providing that holistic care, but I accept that the links are not easy to make, particularly in aftercare, out of prison.

Meaningful educational activity in prison is still far too sparse. Hugh Monro said in his annual report that a common theme was

“poor access to activities such as education, employability training, work, PE and programmes.”

David McLetchie reminded us that at Cornton Vale, 65 per cent of prisoners are locked in their cells and that only 35 per cent engage in meaningful activity. Although something has been done to deal with that, we do not go far enough. Glenochil is just as bad. It is unacceptable because we all pay the price when prisoners reoffend. The inspector has said:

“I would like to see increased opportunities and encouragement for prisoners to access alcohol reduction programmes. Too often I see addressing alcohol issues as being ... less important”.

He said that we needed to do more about that, perhaps particularly in Polmont.

Graeme Pearson called for tighter key performance indicators on activity in prisons. I support that call. Mary Fee talked about her commitment to families affected by imprisonment and mentioned the cross-party group on families affected by imprisonment.

We need to consider a charter of rights for the children of those in prison, like the one in the United States, perhaps as part of the children’s rights bill. Families are an important area.

Visitor committees are important. We do not have a programme for those. We need to have one in every prison, and not just Saughton and Perth. I hope that the Barlinnie one opening next month will receive support from the Government.

The Government’s amendment is interesting but I hope that, when he sums up, the cabinet secretary will go a little further in justifying it. As Roderick Campbell said, we should be cautious. However, we also need to be fairly detailed in our approach to the issue.

11:25