Meeting of the Parliament 12 June 2014
Scottish Labour supports the message that the profits that are created by criminal conduct across Scotland should be seized and returned to the communities from which they were stolen in the first place. That is why, at the United Kingdom level, Labour supported the introduction of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and was fully committed to the various developments that have led to where we are today. However, it is apposite that we take time now to discuss whether cashback delivers effectively and in a way that we would seek for the future. In that context, I am very pleased to contribute to the debate.
The cabinet secretary indicated in response to an intervention that he did not have specific figures to justify some of his claims of success in connection with the cashback formula. Repeated freedom of information requests relating to the successes and outcomes that the cashback programme has delivered have been very difficult to pursue through the system, and responses have been delayed and obscure, describing as successes what we would all like to laud in the future. Although we support the underlying measures that the Government has introduced, we would like to see a sharpening of focus to ensure that moneys that are recovered from criminals are directed with best effect to those who might benefit from cashback.
I hope that the cabinet secretary can agree that we support a major part of the Government’s motion. He mentioned that the scheme is unique, but I remind him that, in 2006, the then Labour Administration had a very similar scheme with the engaging title of the reinvesting the proceeds of crime scheme. It was described as support for
“local projects aimed at reducing crime, improving people’s quality of life and visibly repairing the harm caused to communities through the impact of serious violent crime.”
Therefore, on the notion that cashback is an innovative scheme that the Government introduced, it would perhaps have been more humane to acknowledge that it is a development of an earlier edition of a similar scheme that was led by the then Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson.
When that scheme was introduced, there were discussions across the UK about how such assets might be used. England and Wales took an approach that was very different from the approach in Scotland. They agreed that moneys that had been liberated from criminal sources could be filtered through to the police service, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and even the prosecution authorities. I can tell the cabinet secretary from first-hand experience of that process that a great deal of professional time and budget attention was spent trying to ensure that each of those agencies got its fair share of the assets that were recovered from criminals. The approach that was taken in Scotland—I am pleased that the current Government followed it through—instead looked to direct assets that were recovered from criminals to the communities that they initially came from. To that extent, cashback has delivered, and we are keen to continue to support that delivery. It would be good if the Government acknowledged that it has the support of members on the Opposition benches.
However, we want to see where the money goes and what the public and communities get from the delivery of cashback. The Scottish Football Association and the communities cup get £7.1 million over five years, but the routes out of prison project gets £500,000. Scottish rugby gets £3.6 million, whereas the just play programme gets £310,000. International development was given £1.5 million, and the Procurator Fiscal Service and the police were given £3 million. From my perspective, it is difficult to ascertain what benefits have actually accrued. That is the important point.
We can see the activities and we know the numbers who have engaged, but we need to understand whether the investment achieved the best outcome, so that we can review that and share it with the Scottish public.