Chamber
Plenary, 26 Feb 2004
26 Feb 2004 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Young People
Keith Raffan's point is extremely valuable and important. Later, I will talk about what I consider to be the formidable expert opinion in Scotland in support of that approach to tackling reoffending—an approach that is seen in initiatives such as Airborne.
The problem with prison—especially short-term prison sentences—is that, because it does not challenge the offending behaviour of prisoners, it is not as successful as many alternatives to custody in reducing reoffending. Any penal policy worth its salt must be effective as well as tough and any strategy for young people must include a range of measures, because there is no single solution. There must be a range of measures that are designed not just to contain the minority of young people who offend, but to challenge and change their behaviour.
In its public statements, the Executive agrees with that. The motion rightly refers to "addressing offending behaviour" and the Minister for Justice claims to be committed to reducing the prison population and tackling reoffending. Against that backdrop, the decision to withdraw funding from the Airborne Initiative seems perverse.
The Airborne Initiative offers a tough and intensive alternative to custody for some of the most difficult and persistent young offenders in the country. There has been a great deal of comment about the infamous "Chancers" documentary, which some say showed Airborne in a bad light. However, given the type of offender the initiative deals with, it is no surprise that the project has encountered problems and challenges along the way and that it does not succeed in rehabilitating every young person who comes its way. For a programme that deals with high-tariff offenders, particularly in the age group that it deals with, a high drop-out rate goes with the territory.
Nevertheless, the success of Airborne has been impressive and has been improving. People who complete the course are less likely to reoffend than others who are sent to prison or who receive other community-based sentences. A study for the Executive completed in 2000 by researchers at the University of Stirling suggested that the reconviction rates for those who attended Airborne were 21 per cent less than for those who received alternative sentences. It also concluded that Airborne provided
"a valuable addition to the range of non-custodial options available to the courts."
Okay, that was four years ago and I accept that there is an argument that time has moved on. However, since then, Airborne has been praised by the Scottish Executive. Only a few months ago, Justice Department officials wrote to the outgoing chairman praising him for his good work and the progress that had been made by the initiative. I understand that a report by the social work services inspectorate—although I do not know, because it has not been published—identifies significant progress and improvement in the service that Airborne is providing.
That brings me back to Keith Raffan's point. In addition to the views of the management and staff of Airborne and the graduates of the programme—although I suppose that it could be said that they are bound to stick up for it—there is a significant and formidable body of expert opinion in Scotland that is adamant that the Executive has got it wrong. Twenty-three respected individuals in Scotland, including a former High Court judge, academics, businessmen, the former bishop of Edinburgh and former prison inspectors of both Scotland and England have put their names to a letter supporting the Airborne Initiative and are part of the campaign to persuade the Scottish Executive to change its mind.
In his opening remarks, Peter Peacock said that the decision on Airborne was well considered. Although I accept that the Executive may have more information than is available in the public domain, all we have had from ministers—who, as far as I am aware, have not so much as visited the initiative—is an assertion that the initiative does not provide value for money. Not a scrap of hard evidence has been offered to back that up. The figures cited by Airborne of £116 per week for a place on the programme—albeit when it is full—compared with £574 per week for a prison place have never been challenged by the Scottish Executive.
The problem with prison—especially short-term prison sentences—is that, because it does not challenge the offending behaviour of prisoners, it is not as successful as many alternatives to custody in reducing reoffending. Any penal policy worth its salt must be effective as well as tough and any strategy for young people must include a range of measures, because there is no single solution. There must be a range of measures that are designed not just to contain the minority of young people who offend, but to challenge and change their behaviour.
In its public statements, the Executive agrees with that. The motion rightly refers to "addressing offending behaviour" and the Minister for Justice claims to be committed to reducing the prison population and tackling reoffending. Against that backdrop, the decision to withdraw funding from the Airborne Initiative seems perverse.
The Airborne Initiative offers a tough and intensive alternative to custody for some of the most difficult and persistent young offenders in the country. There has been a great deal of comment about the infamous "Chancers" documentary, which some say showed Airborne in a bad light. However, given the type of offender the initiative deals with, it is no surprise that the project has encountered problems and challenges along the way and that it does not succeed in rehabilitating every young person who comes its way. For a programme that deals with high-tariff offenders, particularly in the age group that it deals with, a high drop-out rate goes with the territory.
Nevertheless, the success of Airborne has been impressive and has been improving. People who complete the course are less likely to reoffend than others who are sent to prison or who receive other community-based sentences. A study for the Executive completed in 2000 by researchers at the University of Stirling suggested that the reconviction rates for those who attended Airborne were 21 per cent less than for those who received alternative sentences. It also concluded that Airborne provided
"a valuable addition to the range of non-custodial options available to the courts."
Okay, that was four years ago and I accept that there is an argument that time has moved on. However, since then, Airborne has been praised by the Scottish Executive. Only a few months ago, Justice Department officials wrote to the outgoing chairman praising him for his good work and the progress that had been made by the initiative. I understand that a report by the social work services inspectorate—although I do not know, because it has not been published—identifies significant progress and improvement in the service that Airborne is providing.
That brings me back to Keith Raffan's point. In addition to the views of the management and staff of Airborne and the graduates of the programme—although I suppose that it could be said that they are bound to stick up for it—there is a significant and formidable body of expert opinion in Scotland that is adamant that the Executive has got it wrong. Twenty-three respected individuals in Scotland, including a former High Court judge, academics, businessmen, the former bishop of Edinburgh and former prison inspectors of both Scotland and England have put their names to a letter supporting the Airborne Initiative and are part of the campaign to persuade the Scottish Executive to change its mind.
In his opening remarks, Peter Peacock said that the decision on Airborne was well considered. Although I accept that the Executive may have more information than is available in the public domain, all we have had from ministers—who, as far as I am aware, have not so much as visited the initiative—is an assertion that the initiative does not provide value for money. Not a scrap of hard evidence has been offered to back that up. The figures cited by Airborne of £116 per week for a place on the programme—albeit when it is full—compared with £574 per week for a prison place have never been challenged by the Scottish Executive.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S2M-943, in the name of Peter Peacock, on a better deal for young people, and on two amendments...
The Minister for Education and Young People (Peter Peacock):
Lab
I have made clear in the chamber before how much the Executive values the rich contribution that Scotland's young people make to our national life. We value ...
Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
The minister may be aware of the concerns that have been expressed on a number of occasions about the restrictions that the Data Protection Act 1998 could pl...
Peter Peacock:
Lab
Absolutely. We are investing, through the modernising government fund, to enable secure sharing of data among service providers while protecting people's rig...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
Although between 2001-02 and 2002-03 the number of children who were referred for offences seems to have dropped, there was an increase of more than 10 per c...
Peter Peacock:
Lab
There are many things that we seek to do for those young people, through the work of Margaret Curran and others. One reason why we introduced the fast-track ...
Mr Keith Raffan (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD):
LD
Will the minister give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con) rose—
Con
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
Will the minister give way?
Peter Peacock:
Lab
As I have already given way to Fiona Hyslop, I will give way to Lord James.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I call Fiona Hyslop.
Peter Peacock:
Lab
No, I am giving way to Lord James.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
Con
I am happy to allow Fiona Hyslop to intervene.
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
Thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciate what the Executive is saying about looked-after children. However, we seem to be setting lower standards for loo...
Peter Peacock:
Lab
I take the rare opportunity to agree with Fiona Hyslop, at least on her first point. We are saying clearly that we are not doing enough for those young peopl...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Not in the least this morning. We have time.
Peter Peacock:
Lab
In that case, I am happy to give way to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
Con
Before the minister finishes his speech, will he state his position on the mandatory drug testing of young children in schools?
Peter Peacock:
Lab
We take extremely seriously the issues of drug use and drug supply in schools. We want those issues to be tackled in the most effective ways possible. Lord J...
Mr Raffan:
LD
I wanted to ask about truancy. There are some excellent anti-truancy projects, not least the one in Alloa, of which the minister might be aware. Will he say ...
Peter Peacock:
Lab
I take this opportunity to agree with Keith Raffan. One thing that we are seeking to address much more effectively in schools is the whole business of truanc...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
The minister might be aware that there are some difficulties in accessing child psychological services. That has become an on-going problem for a number of y...
Peter Peacock:
Lab
Karen Gillon raises an important point. As part of the overall system, child psychologists are crucial at certain periods. A lack of child psychologists in t...
Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
The debate is welcome. It is important that we focus on the positive contribution that the overwhelming majority of young people make to society as well as o...
Mr Raffan:
LD
I agree with Nicola Sturgeon on the cycle of reoffending. Does she, too, think it interesting that the former chief inspectors of prisons for England and Wal...
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
Keith Raffan's point is extremely valuable and important. Later, I will talk about what I consider to be the formidable expert opinion in Scotland in support...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
I welcome the SNP's support for Airborne. Unfortunately, that support was not evident in the constituency when Airborne was facing a difficult move to Braidw...
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
Last year was the second best year for participation in the Airborne Initiative, but the fact that the programme has had problems and has found it difficult ...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con):
Con
My interests are as registered in the register of members' interests. I welcome the debate this morning. Having read the Executive's motion, I see that it to...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton refers in his amendment to the schools passport policy. How much money from scarce public resources would go to the substantial s...