Hansard

This is a very worthwhile debate, and I am glad that the minister has brought it to the chamber.

I welcome the evaluation of the cashback for communities programme, although I agree with colleagues that it is a little late in coming and a little limited in content. I hope that, in the future, the cabinet secretary will ensure that more information is provided about not only the number of young people who are taking part but where they come from and what their circumstances are. That would help to illuminate the issue.

The entire premise of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was that, when people—and drug dealers in particular—have been apprehended and convicted of a crime, the money that they have obtained through the misery of others can be taken from them by the courts. I think that we would all agree that the ill-gotten gains of Scotland’s criminals should be retrieved in that way and used to fund good causes in accordance with the purpose of the 2002 act.

Today’s debate is a good opportunity to consider what more might be done to strengthen the system and to ensure that the best possible use is made of the available resources. I had hoped that we would hear from the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Government will look at ways in which it can ensure that more money is seized from criminals, and to that end I welcome the £3 million that he announced. However, I draw his attention to a potential issue that I came across in researching my contribution to the debate.

I will quote some text from the website of a Scottish legal firm, which is not untypical of some other commentary that I noticed on the web a few days ago. The text forms part of a section in which this particular legal firm advertises its expertise in the area of confiscation under the 2002 act.

The website states that the company

“always employ an expert witness namely a forensic accountant to examine the Crown figures. This can make a big difference both in attacking the benefit figure and in reducing the ‘available amount’ figure. The Crown will engage in discussion and listen to reasoned argument meaning that these cases always settle in a manner suitable to all parties. We were instructed in the widely reported case of a convicted drug dealer who was pursued for £150,000. Following our involvement and negotiation, a criminal confiscation order was made for the sum of £1.”

I understand why the sum of £1 was identified: it is so that, if other assets appear in the future, it is clear that those assets are over and above the particular confiscation order and therefore can be looked at again. I also understand that everyone has a right to challenge the Crown; if there are errors in its calculations, so be it.

What gives me pause is the line in the text that states:

“The Crown will engage in discussion and listen to reasoned argument”

to try to settle the case

“in a manner suitable to all parties.”

Do we really want the Crown to settle such negotiations

“in a manner suitable to all parties”?

I do not think so. I hope that the cabinet secretary can assure me that the Crown is always robust in such cases and that it considers its role to be to settle such matters in the best interests of our communities.

In my view, the communities that suffer most from deprivation, which are often the communities that are most blighted by crime, should be the ones that benefit most from cashback. I have made that point on a number of occasions in the chamber. Unfortunately, however, that does not seem to be the case.

It will come as no surprise to members that I would argue strongly in that regard for my home city of Glasgow, and of course I want Glasgow to receive a share of any funding that is available. However, the reality is that, in spite of the fact that 33 per cent of children in Glasgow are classified as living in poverty—the highest percentage in Scotland—the city does not even rank among the top five local authorities to which the cash is disbursed.

That seems to be fundamentally wrong, which—as I said—is a point that I have made on many occasions. I hope that the cabinet secretary will, in closing, suggest ways in which that issue could be addressed. We feel that more content is needed in the evaluation precisely so that such issues can be examined more seriously.

Having said that, I am a huge fan of cashback in communities, and I am aware of a number of projects in my constituency that have received funding through that route, which is incredibly welcome. The SRU, for example, has been active in 15 schools in my constituency and has taken part in many street rugby sessions in Possilpark. I am delighted that the SRU has been working with Glasgow community and safety services, as I believe that working in partnership with local organisations is often the key to success in that regard.

I hope that the work can be sustained over a considerable period of time and that it is not just part of a programme to deliver individual sessions but part of a routine of organised activity. Again, that is one of the areas where I think the evaluation report could be strengthened.

I am also aware of a number of local organisations that have been unsuccessful in their application for funding and that feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have been disadvantaged because they are local and not national organisations. They are organisations that are already working on the ground but feel that other, larger organisations are funded to come in and do similar, or the same, things as they have been doing for many years.

Unfortunately, when some of those organisations have gone back to the cashback fund and asked for feedback as to why they have failed in their application, they have been told that information can be provided only over the phone and that there cannot be any more dialogue than that. I think that that process needs to be a bit more transparent, if only to explain to people why they are failing in their applications.