Meeting of the Parliament 12 June 2014
I will deal with some of the remarks that members have made, not only in the winding-up speeches but throughout the debate. There has been a general welcome for cashback, and I am grateful for that. It appears to me appropriate that we should build on a scheme that we, as a Government, are proud of, which we accept was started by the previous Executive but which has since been changed and refined by us.
The cashback scheme builds on the 2002 act, on which not only does Annabel Goldie agree with Christine Grahame but I agree with both of them. We welcomed the 2002 act, and we support the action that it sets out. No Administration in any jurisdiction would oppose it.
Equally, I welcome the comments made by members about the good things that have been done through cashback. Members have seen good things involving sporting activities, for example, and have spoken to those involved. James Dornan and Patricia Ferguson referred to girls’ participation in sport. We are grateful to the organisations that have targeted that area because, as other speakers have mentioned, we have had debates in the chamber about the issues and difficulties involved in it.
Patricia Ferguson made a fair point about seeking to broaden cashback to areas other than sport. It is fair to say that, when we started the scheme, we got the biggest bang for our buck by addressing the issue of young people hanging around street corners on a Friday or Saturday night. The immediate and easy hit for that is to introduce street football and similar activities that are easily pulled together.
We very much welcome the SFA’s input but, equally, we welcome the input of organisations from rugby, basketball, boxing and other sports. However, cashback is not simply about funding sport. Various members mentioned music projects, for example, and John Pentland referred to a music project in Motherwell that I have visited. Cashback funding must also go to music, drama, art and dance projects and we must ensure that we can offer an opportunity for every young person.
It is also fair to say that cashback might be a victim of its own success. We would love to fund everything, but we cannot, because we are constrained by the limits of the money that we have. There will be organisations that will be disappointed, and some of them have made representations to me. I am disappointed that I have to disappoint them, but we can do only so much with the funds that we currently have. However, we are seeking to spread them more broadly.
George Adam and other members across the chamber suggested ideas that we are happy to take on board to see what we can do. More funding will come in and we always seek to have more projects that we can pull down from the shelf if we get a windfall sum of money. We have had such money from the Weir Group and the Abbot Group, for example. We make a commitment to many organisations that if we currently cannot fund them but think that they are worth while, we will keep them on the shelf so that we can deliver to them any windfall money that comes in.
Two specific issues were raised in the debate that I need to comment on. The first is the cashback funding formula for where the money goes, which was raised initially by Duncan McNeil; and the other is the proceeds of crime aspect, on which I will be happy to address remarks to Margaret Mitchell and Annabel Goldie.
The evaluation report states clearly in table 3.11, to which Duncan McNeil referred, that the number 1 council for funding, as James Dornan pointed out, is Glasgow, with over £5 million. Then it is Edinburgh, with just under £4 million, North Lanarkshire, with just over £2 million, Dundee, with almost £1.75 million, followed by other councils.
On where the money goes, Duncan McNeil referred to the percentage of funding per 10,000 of the population in those areas. I refer him to paragraph 3.14 in the evaluation report:
“The figures show that relative expenditure has been higher in the island authorities and that a number of predominantly rural authorities have also received above average expenditure (based on the population of young people).”