Cashback for Communities
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4244, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on cashback for communities, investing the proceeds of crime back into our communities.
On 6 June 2007, I announced a new approach to reinvestment of the proceeds of crime: we committed to investing the money that we recover from gangsters and criminals in Scotland's young people, in order to give them more choices and chances, and to help keep away from crime and antisocial behaviour those of them who stray. A small minority stray, but most young people simply need more to do—things that are fun and healthy and which keep them occupied. In June 2007, I set out the challenge. I can now report back on what we have achieved—and we have achieved a great deal.
In January 2008, I launched cashback for communities to reinvest the proceeds of crime. Since then, there have been unprecedented levels of investment: £13 million has been committed so far and more than 100,000 young people from Stornoway to Hawick, and from Wick to Portpatrick, have benefited. They are involved in hundreds of projects covering sports, arts, culture and youth work. Such projects give our youngsters something to do. They help them to develop new skills and interests while having safe and healthy fun, and—of course—they help to keep them out of trouble.
We know that crime and antisocial behaviour afflict every community, but some are worse affected than others, which is why cashback focuses on the areas that need it most, while ensuring that other areas also benefit. Of course, it is not just the poorer communities that lack facilities and opportunities, which is why we are ensuring that all young people—boys and girls, in the countryside and in the towns and cities—can benefit. Everyone between the ages of 10 and 19 will have a cashback activity or project near them—if not now, then soon. Cashback also benefits the wider community by getting kids off street corners and giving something back to the community through their involvement in things such as volunteering.
The benefits go even wider. Cashback has brought together in partnership a fantastic range of national organisations, including YouthLink Scotland, the Scottish Football Association, the Scottish Women's Football Association, the Scottish Rugby Union, basketballscotland, Scottish Sports Futures, Scottish Screen and the Scottish Arts Council. They are all working together and working in new ways. I thank them for all their hard work, collectively and individually, in making cashback a success, and I thank the volunteers and paid staff in those organisations.
Local efforts have also been fantastic. In Falkirk, Dundee, Ayrshire, Orkney and the Borders, hundreds of volunteers, parents, teachers, police officers, fire officers and youth workers are working together for the benefit of young people.
I want to say something about the recovery process. I acknowledge the diligent work that has been done by the Crown, the police and the other agencies that are involved. We know that by hitting organised criminals in the pocket, we impact seriously on their activities. That is as it should be. I want increased focus on that, which is why we have already committed to reinvesting £400,000 of the proceeds of crime in the recovery process that is led by the Crown. We are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to consider how to help the police identify more criminal profits and recoverable assets so that they, as well as the Crown, benefit.
I want to say something about all the strands of cashback, starting with the small-scale local projects that we support through our YouthLink grant scheme, which gives money not only to those who need it most but to those who can do most with it. It is our biggest investment so far—£3 million in the first year alone, which supports 278 projects, which are in every local authority area in Scotland and have more than 21,000 participants. We are still gathering the results, but I have no doubt that the success will be clear. I believe that it is through small-scale local investment of that kind—the average award is about £10,000—that cashback can make the biggest difference.
We are investing in groups that do not always find it easy to access funding—groups that are often at the very heart of our communities and are most trusted by young people: from a tractor-restoration project in Stornoway to a community farm in Dumfries; from a sell-out rock concert in Glasgow to an equestrian project in Edinburgh. Cashback is investing in youth cafes, skate parks and environmental projects. It is supporting young people, building networks and capacity, and energising our communities. Because of the success of that approach, I announced earlier today that another at least £1 million would be invested through YouthLink, starting this financial year, which will mean that thousands more young people all across Scotland will benefit.
Cashback has also invested a huge amount in sports. First, I will consider our national sport of football. Cashback has provided more than £2.5 million to deliver a significant programme of football activities throughout Scotland. More than 6,500 young people are playing street football and midnight league football. It is giving kids what they want, where they need it, and it is offering diversion and participation.
The cabinet secretary will know of the outstanding success over the past few months of the Spartans Community Football Academy, which has provided facilities for hundreds of young people in my constituency—many of whom would otherwise be on street corners. Does the cabinet secretary share my disappointment that the academy was not successful in the previous round of applications to cashback for communities, and will he ensure that its undoubted success is drawn to the attention of the people who make the decisions in the next round?
I am more than happy to draw people's attention to Spartans' undoubted success. I was in my local hostelry on Saturday night as the team celebrated winning the championship. Craig Graham and the others tend to hang out there, so I was happy to congratulate them on winning the trophy yet again in their victory over Dalbeattie Star. I have worked with them and I know the good work that they do. The new ground is magnificent, and the club does a huge amount in the community. I will certainly be hoping that Spartans will be successful in future applications. The Government does not make the decisions in St Andrew's house, but I certainly accept that Spartans are a role model that many other clubs will follow.
The activities that I mentioned are not just one-off activities—we are providing sustainable activity. The soccer one programme is reinvigorating schools football in all 32 local authorities, with more than 5,400 young people from more than 300 schools playing each week. There has been a fantastic response throughout Scotland. For example, the Nicolson institute in Stornoway has provided the most new teams—eight. There are also long-term benefits, with more than 440 new volunteers trained as football coaches.
I obviously welcome the announcements that the minister is making about investment in sports and other activities for young people. However, will he explain to Parliament what is distinctive about cashback for communities? The money comes from crime, but how does the cabinet secretary distinguish it from general funding that the Scottish Government should be providing for the activities that he has mentioned?
The funding is additional. It is taken from people who have harmed their communities and is then reinvested in an effort to make those communities better. Clearly, other funding should continue, whether from local authorities or from other departments. The justice department is taking from people who damage our communities, and it is ensuring that those communities—and all other communities—benefit. Some areas suffer from severe and dangerous crime, but many other areas are blighted by low-level antisocial behaviour, which is why we have to target the funding.
As I was saying, there are long-term benefits. There are more than 440 new volunteer football coaches, and the aim is to train 1,700 a year. There will also be funding for six schools of football, which will offer intensive engagement, using football as a way to get kids involved. Indeed, I was at Cumnock academy with national coach and team manager George Burley earlier this week.
We acknowledge that sports need facilities, as Mr Chisholm suggested. That is why we have invested £2 million in 27 projects the length and breadth of Scotland. There are new grass pitches on Bressay in Shetland and in Aberdeen, and there are new changing rooms in Haddington, Dunoon and Dundee. In Loanhead, Lochend and Lybster, there is a legacy that will last for years.
However, it is not just about football. We have provided one of the biggest-ever investments in youth rugby—£1.4 million—to get more than 50,000 young people involved in school and street rugby, and to help to build a volunteer base for the sport. Through the fantastic efforts of the SRU, we have already exceeded our target, with more than 67,000 young people having participated in cashback rugby activities. We are taking rugby to places it has never been, and we are getting thousands involved.
We have also invested £1.74 million in basketball, and thousands more kids are now involved in twilight basketball. More than 130 schools are now involved in the jump2it programme—an inspiring partnership between the Scottish Rocks professional team and Scottish Sports Futures.
We know that not everyone is passionate about sports, which is why we are continuing to develop cashback in new areas. We have started an arts and culture fund. In March, we launched with Scottish Screen and the Scottish Arts Council a £1.2 million investment in the creative arts, which will get to some of the most hard-to-reach young people and to some of those who are most deserving of our support. That investment in the arts is only the beginning. We will continue to develop cashback to ensure that it provides what young people want, when they want it and where they need it.
More than £13 million has been committed through cashback and more than 100,000 young people will have been involved and engaged across Scotland. What better way could there be to reinvest the money that is drained from our communities by the gangsters who prey on the weak and the vulnerable? We are doing everything we can to end their evil trade, and while that battle continues, and as long as the police and Crown are stripping the criminals of their ill-gotten gains, I promise that our young people will continue to benefit, along with those in law enforcement.
New activities, new opportunities—a new start for many of our youngsters.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the fact that, since its launch in January 2008, the CashBack for Communities programme has provided positive opportunities and activities for over 100,000 young people in Scotland; recognises that providing healthy and fun activities not only gives young people something to do, but can help in reducing crime and antisocial behaviour by diverting the small minority who cause trouble away from such behaviour; welcomes the fact that the CashBack programme has been funded through £12 million recovered from criminals using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and commends the significant efforts of partners in the CashBack programme including Youthlink, Scottish Football Association, Scottish Rugby Union, Basketballscotland, Scottish Sports Futures, sportscotland, Scottish Screen and the Scottish Arts Council, as well as the very many local projects and volunteers that are making the scheme a success.
I welcome this debate on the cashback for communities initiative, which, because of legislation that was introduced by the previous Executive, benefits many individuals and communities across Scotland. Labour ministers pioneered the work that is being done to ensure that the communities that pay the price for the criminal profits of a few benefit when those ill-gotten gains are rightly seized by the courts.
Of course, we welcome the fact that the scheme has continued to be promoted by ministers in the Scottish Government. We know that it is not slow to promote the scheme, given that there have been 12 press releases celebrating it since March last year. However, I do not dispute that this is an initiative that we should—as a country and a Parliament—shout about from the rooftops. It is something that we all support and, given the fractious and contentious debates that we have on the Government's justice policies, it is good that we can discuss today an issue on which there is greater consensus.
We will support the Government's motion today and hope that our amendment, which seeks to build on it, will also be supported. However, in the general and refreshing air of agreement, we should not shy from asking important questions about the future focus and direction of travel of the policy.
There can also be no complacency about the success rate of seizures of the illegitimate profits of those who have been convicted of criminal activity. That is not a simple process. Authorities north and south of the border have felt the benefits of the legislation, but a great deal more could still be achieved in terms of recovering the proceeds of crime. We look to ministers to ensure progress on that, and I will return to those questions later.
We believe that funding through the cashback for communities scheme must focus relentlessly on projects that divert the people who are most at risk of offending and on the communities that are most affected by crime. During the previous Executive's time in office, a host of such activities were funded. In particular, I draw attention to the drug dealers don't care campaign, which was launched by Cathy Jamieson and Hugh Henry and saw the seizure of £1.5 million of drugs and cash from dealers.
I will not disagree about the potential for sporting activity—including football, of course—to provide effective diversion from offending. In the previous session of Parliament, I was the Enterprise and Culture Committee's reporter on the future of Scottish football and, while researching that, I visited midnight football league schemes. The evidence of their success in reducing crime and antisocial behaviour was clear. One scheme in Fife offered access to indoor sports facilities on Saturday evenings, and one in Glasgow provided late-night floodlit pitches for use by young people. In both instances, youth offending in the immediate area fell by up to 70 per cent. Aberdeen Football Club's community football programme reaches some 40,000 children across the north-east and, earlier this month, Hearts came to Parliament to brief members on the success of their scheme here in Edinburgh, so I do not need to be persuaded of the merits of investing in that kind of activity.
However, when we think about investment in such sporting activity, and in the cultural activities that the cabinet secretary mentioned, we must always ask whether the activity is going to be diversionary from crime and antisocial behaviour and whether it will benefit in that way the communities that are most affected by crime. I am sure that that is true of the project in Edinburgh that Malcolm Chisholm mentioned, and street football, which has also received funding, clearly fits the bill.
The initiative must not, however, be used to fund elite sport provision, and if the money is invested in cultural programmes, they must be programmes that encourage maximum participation by the targeted groups. The scheme must always be linked to improving communities and addressing crime. I have heard concerns about whether that focus will be maintained in the current programme. I ask ministers, when they fund programmes directly and work with the national bodies—whose participation in the scheme we welcome—to ensure that that priority is clear when awards are made.
However the schemes are administered, it is the amount of funds that are successfully seized from criminals that determines how much can be invested. It is accepted throughout the UK that, although legislation on proceeds of crime has been an excellent start to the work, far more needs to be done to maximise the amount of illegal assets that are recovered from criminals.
Those who profit from crime will always be adept at concealing their profits, to the extent that some are even granted legal aid because of their success in hiding their money. It is estimated that, on average, just 10 per cent of criminals' total assets are confiscated. We should look for improvements in the amount of assets that are recovered and do more to ensure that the Mr Bigs of the criminal world are not let off the hook. I do not suggest that that is easy, but it was never the intention to stand still on the work. It is essential to the cashback for communities scheme to ensure that we maximise both the number of successful prosecutions and the funds that are recovered.
That is one reason why it is so important to get on with the job of building the crime campus at Gartcosh without further delay. We must ensure that more and not fewer people are prosecuted for fraud. We must reconsider what can be done to ensure that as much money as possible is seized from criminal gain and reinvested in communities that are affected by criminal profiteering. Those communities can benefit from the cashback for communities scheme.
I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government wants to extend the range of crimes that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 covers. We will support that. The cabinet secretary has said that, so that we can do more, £400,000 of the funds that are seized will be used to support the Crown Office's work on pursuing criminals' assets. That approach has been called a virtuous circle because the seized funds will be used to help seize more funds in the future. That, too, is something that we can support—we hope that there will be greater investment in the scheme through that work.
The cabinet secretary has also talked about introducing a policy of incentivisation, whereby police forces will be able to retain a proportion of the funds that they are involved in seizing. Such a policy is already in operation for forces south of the border, but I am sure that I do not need to tell the cabinet secretary that we do not always have to do exactly what is done down south. We must do what is best in the Scottish context. In Scotland, we decided previously that the funds should be gathered centrally to be invested in projects in communities that are affected by crime—projects such as cashback for communities. If that is to be changed—some figures suggest that agencies would receive 50 per cent of what they recover—it should be the subject of a full debate, because we would have serious questions about such a change in the direction of travel.
I assure Richard Baker that no chief constable has asked for 50 per cent. We are working with ACPOS on the matter—I will be speaking to it this evening. The member makes the valid point that, as the Crown Office does, we want to ensure that the proceeds of crime go back to agencies so that we have that virtuous circle, but I assure him that no chief constable has sought such an amount, and that we would not consider providing it. We will work with ACPOS to try to strike a balance. I will be more than happy to keep Parliament abreast of developments.
I would welcome further dialogue with the cabinet secretary on that. I find his reassurance helpful.
We welcome the cashback for communities initiative and the fact that it is taking forward opportunities that are presented by legislation that was passed under the previous Executive. I hope that members will support our amendment, which seeks even greater success for the scheme and a continued community focus in respect of investment of the funds.
We are happy to support the Liberal Democrat amendment and the Government motion. I am sure that all members look forward to a future in which we can do even more to ensure that illegal profits are taken out of the criminals' pockets and put into the communities that most need our support and protection.
I move amendment S3M-4244.1, to insert at end:
"; believes that every effort should be made to ensure further progress in recovering assets from those who profit from crime, and believes that funds obtained through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 should continue to be focussed on projects in communities affected by crime and in activities that provide diversion from offending."
There is a welcome slant to this very welcome motion. Although we have had many debates, statements and parliamentary questions on crime and justice issues, the thrust of many of them has been much more negative, with heavy overtones of playing to the gallery and demands for either tough action or—not infrequently—the minister's head. It is perhaps inevitable that the justice secretary—not this one, in particular, but justice secretaries in general—will always be in the headlines and frequently under attack. Of course, that is not to say that the attacks are not sometimes justified, as they are with regard to the cabinet secretary's continued defiance of Parliament's will over the Glasgow community court proposal. However, who knows? Perhaps if more money gets recovered through this very welcome scheme, there might be some left over for a rethink on that.
Today's debate marks a welcome change. In the criminal justice system, the cashback for communities programme represents a kind of alchemy: it does not exactly turn base metal into gold, but it converts the ill-gotten profits of criminals from serious criminal conspiracies into opportunity and hope for young people who might, in the wrong circumstances, become the criminal leaders of the future or the damaging petty troublemakers who hurt so many communities.
The cabinet secretary was right to echo the observation by the former Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland that young people need more to do. Although the concept of positive activities to burn off excess energy and of pursuit of sports and arts to fill idle hours productively is not new, it remains none the less dynamic. It would be trite to remind Parliament that antisocial behaviour rises in the evenings, at weekends and during school holidays. It would be redundant to tell our audience this afternoon about the useful work that is being done by the violence reduction unit and operation reclaim, and about the work on gangs and territorialism to cut crime and tackle the motivation to commit crime. It would be commonplace to recall that so much criminal behaviour and substance abuse are fuelled by the social alienation of people who have often had very dreadful starts in life and quite unsatisfactory parenting experiences, or that a very high percentage of offenders have been through the care system, suffer from mental health or addiction problems or have no useful skills.
I suggest, taking all these factors together, that a diversionary approach that tackles the root causes of crime and antisocial behaviour probably has more to offer and is more effective in reducing crime than almost anything else one might care to suggest, whether it be ineffective short-term prison sentences or other measures that are usually seen—perhaps optimistically—as being a deterrent to offending.
The cashback for communities programme, which I have to say is one of the more successful names that have been devised by the Government's legion of public relations gurus, has the supreme advantage of being a dedicated fund that supports diversion from crime. Projects such as street football and twilight basketball, the youth projects strand of the fund, rugby coaching and the many other projects that were mentioned by the cabinet secretary are enormously fruitful. As Mr MacAskill said, £13 million has been disbursed in just two years.
The Liberal Democrat amendment makes two points that I hope will be accepted by Parliament. First, the Minister for Community Safety needs to ensure the closest possible engagement between safer neighbourhood and community police teams and young people. In other words, the projects that are chosen should have clear added value in diverting young people from crime, and communities should be closely involved in identifying needs and bids. I point out that the Government has already signed up to that concept in the related approach of involving communities in the projects that are to be tackled by offenders under the new community payback orders.
The second point in our amendment is that the cashback money should be distributed fairly around Scotland to the general benefit of us all. I suppose that there is a degree of tension between that aspiration and the suggestion in Labour's amendment that the funds be targeted at communities that are affected by crime. However, as the cabinet secretary has pointed out, many urban and rural communities are affected by crime. Indeed, the Minister for Community Safety acknowledged that very point when he said in January and again in April that the money had to be distributed fairly around Scotland, and went on to make it clear that he was
"aware that we have not reached certain parts of the country."——[Official Report, 22 January 2009; c 14331.]
and called for more representations from MSPs about projects in their areas.
If I may, I will make another contextual point. The Government is committed to early intervention strategies, and the cashback for communities funding does some of that. However, if that commitment means anything, it means that services for young people should be prioritised because of the long-term benefits of putting young people's lives back on track, thereby enabling them to fulfil their potential and enhance their life chances and to contribute positively, rather than negatively, to society, as so many young people do.
We await the outcome of the dormant bank accounts consultation, in which Liberal Democrats have taken a considerable interest and which could result in a one-off windfall. The money could complement the cashback for communities scheme if it were allocated to making effective, meaningful and lasting interventions in general services for young people.
This will be slightly off on a tangent but, as a minister in the previous session of Parliament, I launched the youth work strategy. At that time, we identified the importance of modern premises and facilities and of full use being made of those facilities. The cabinet secretary also referred to the importance of that. We also emphasised the importance of youth organisations such as the scouts, the Boys Brigade, the guides and local youth clubs. I know that the cabinet secretary does not have responsibility for those wider matters, but such organisations still play a huge part in providing positive opportunities for young people. It is clear from what the cabinet secretary said about school football and volunteers that he has discussed those issues with his Cabinet colleagues, but I urge him to continue to do so on a partnership basis.
Diversion from crime and antisocial behaviour is eminently worth while, but the big prize is the positive enhancement of opportunities and personal skills for all our young people. That is a much bigger and more positive project. We should not simply look through the narrow end of the telescope and consider only diversion from crime. I welcome and support the motion and the Labour amendment and I commend the Liberal Democrat amendment.
I move amendment S3M-4244.2, to insert at end:
", and calls on the Scottish Government to promote closer working and engagement between safer neighbourhood and community police teams and young people in efforts to prevent and tackle crime and antisocial behaviour and to ensure that the CashBack money is distributed fairly so that the whole of Scotland can reap the benefits of the scheme".
In what has been a torrid week for the cabinet secretary, I assure him that, if he is looking for a fight this afternoon, he certainly will not find one. Thus far, the debate has been fairly consensual and much of what has been said is a good-news story. Members will have heard me speak previously on the theme that one problem with antisocial behaviour involving young people is the lack of activities for them. Robert Brown was correct to highlight the point that the problems reach a bit of a crescendo during the school summer holidays and at weekends.
Does the member agree that, as we have said on several occasions in the Parliament, it is not solely young people who are involved in antisocial activity? We must consider why we are focusing the cashback scheme purely on activities for young people, as they are not the main contributors to antisocial behaviour.
The point is well made that young people do not have a monopoly on causing us concern with regard to their conduct. There are sound arguments for extending the beneficiaries of the cashback to communities scheme beyond youngsters. However, for the moment, we should direct the principal benefits to youngsters.
Compared to the halcyon days when I was a young person—believe it or not, that was the case some time ago—today, there is not the same amount of youth activity. There are many reasons for that, some of which the Parliament should begin to address. One is the dearth of people who are prepared to volunteer as youth leaders. We should perhaps address the reasons for that. I support whole-heartedly the scheme as it has been developed so far. In particular, it is useful that money is put into diversionary sporting and physical activities. Frankly, if a youngster is so knackered at night that they cannot misbehave, that must be a benefit for everyone. Of course, such activities are also healthy and deal with the problems of obesity, which are of growing concern to our health colleagues. Therefore, everybody wins.
I turn to the downside. In the years since the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was enacted, we have collected £23.5 million. Richard Baker said that that is an estimated 10 per cent of the total turnover of the drugs trade. I would find that reassuring if it were the case, but I believe that the turnover of the drugs trade is very much higher—I see Dr Richard Simpson nodding in agreement.
Nevertheless, we are where we are and progress is being made. I make it clear that I recognise that there have been tremendous efforts on the part of the Crown, the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and serving police officers everywhere in this direction. I concede, and freely admit, that it is not easy, but we have to raise the game a little bit. We have to consider ways in which we can disrupt the evil people who prey on communities. The cabinet secretary was quite right that the most effective approach is sometimes to hit them in the pocket.
We must look at what happens elsewhere. The cabinet secretary will recollect that he and I have been in correspondence about that. I know that we have had discussions with the authorities in Ireland, which I imagine will now be at a fairly advanced stage. I look forward to getting a report from Mr MacAskill—or Mr Ewing—once he feels that the discussions are sufficiently advanced for him to be able to share their results.
It is clear that some communities suffer more from the effects of drug misuse than others. I find it particularly frustrating that the people who are prepared to peddle human misery, who are setting the bad example, are sometimes seen as folk heroes. Young people in particular can look at those individuals, who have never done an honest day's work in their life and who are living a luxurious lifestyle with all the accoutrements that go with it. That is a bad example to set. As such, it is essential that we ensure that the money is taken from them and that we tell people that that has happened. We must ensure that the publicity that surrounds the projects that we run indicates that they are funded with money that has been taken from people who have been involved in the drug trade. If that happened, the activities of those people might not seem quite so impressive to the average youngster.
We are making progress. Thus far, the scheme has worked perfectly satisfactorily. I know that individual members will say that more money should come in the direction of their constituency. That will always be the case; some of our members will, no doubt, always put forward constituency interests in a particularly robust manner.
What we are doing is along the right lines and credit is due for that. However, we must not be complacent. We must recognise that we would not be getting this money in if there were not something seriously wrong with our society. We must make every possible effort to hit the drug barons hard, take their resources from them and use those resources to the maximum benefit of the maximum number of people.
We move to the open debate. Time is on our side, so members can take about a minute and a half more than they were expecting, if they wish.
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. Cashback for communities was launched by our Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, in January 2008 and has to date provided substantial money to youth projects the length and breadth of Scotland. It is Kenny MacAskill's drive and commitment that have made the scheme the reality that it is. To date, more than £12 million of criminal cash has been ploughed back into our communities through partners such as YouthLink Scotland, the SFA, the SRU, basketballscotland, sportscotland and Scottish Screen.
The cashback scheme provides for diversionary projects for young people. I know that the impact on our communities of the injection of these funds is considerable. As others have said, the scheme takes money from criminals—drug dealers in particular—who want to destroy our communities, and invests it to try to build those communities up again.
Something that Bill Aitken said struck a chord with me: we need a new look at the scheme. The scheme depends on organisations and others coming forward with projects, but many of our communities have been destroyed by the drug dealers and in some areas there are no local organisations. We need to build capacity within our communities, including the capacity for people to volunteer and to be involved in bringing forward projects. If we do not have people to run the organisations and volunteer for projects and help to bring them forward, then some of the worst-affected communities will never benefit from the scheme. I ask the cabinet secretary to look at the possibility of allocating some of the money for capacity building in our communities, to try to bring forward projects and encourage people to volunteer. It is from the volunteers in those communities that we will get the projects of the future.
I remind the cabinet secretary that another reason for the lack of volunteers is the criminal vetting process. I know that the cost of vetting a volunteer falls on local organisations, and I wonder whether funding the vetting process might be a worth while investment. That would take the cost away from the poorest communities and get more people to come through the volunteering route, which would also help to build capacity. It would also support those who wish to be vetted so that they can work with young people.
That said, many projects for young people in Central Fife have been supported by cashback for communities, and I have worked very hard to try to encourage existing organisations to take advantage of the money that is available to them. Glenrothes YMCA and YWCA received money to fund a Friday night music project and a film making project; Levenmouth YMCA got £26,000 to develop its street live project, which I know that Kenny MacAskill has visited; Levenmouth youth initiative got money for summer programmes for young people; and Barnardo's Levenmouth links project got money to fund a summer programme. Glenrothes YMCA also received additional funds.
I add my thanks to those of Councillor David Alexander, our councillor for Kennoway, who has worked so hard with partners to bring forward the Kennoway sports association application, which has received £100,000 to develop a new sports pavilion at Cotlands park in Kennoway. I cannot begin to tell the cabinet secretary how much it means to that particular community that they have something to support the many youth football teams and other teams that are springing up in Kennoway. That is happening because there is hope, and because there are facilities for the young people who live there to be able to take part in sports.
I am particularly pleased about the Fife cashback media project, which is working with young people in Glenrothes and elsewhere in Fife; the Glenrothes project deals with generational discrimination. Those local projects are all important. I acknowledge that another £70,000 for Fife has been announced today, and I will do my best to ensure that a lot of that money comes to my constituency of Central Fife.
It is essential that money is invested in diversionary measures in our communities, particularly in the Levenmouth area, which has been devastated by the closure of the pits, the lack of hope and aspiration in the community and the criminal activity that goes on there.
I am delighted that the cashback for communities money has been complemented by the work of the Scottish National Party-led Fife Council—and in particular the work of Dave Alexander, who is the chair of the area committee in Levenmouth. The council is investing in the Levenmouth area, because the SNP believes in communities and in young people. After decades of neglect by Labour councils, the area is experiencing investment at last. That is probably best summed up by the former Levenmouth Labour councillor, Joyce Smith, who was quoted recently as saying—
The member is beginning to stray from the terms of the motion; I would be grateful if she would get back to it.
Indeed. However, I believe that it is important to invest money, unlike Labour councillors who suggested in the past that there was no point in investing in young people because they would destroy that investment. The SNP believes in young people, which is why I am absolutely delighted that at long last that kind of money is going back into our most deprived communities, such as Levenmouth.
Will the member give way?
I think that I am just coming to the end of my speech.
The cashback for communities scheme is so important to our deprived communities. I will do my best, and I know that the cabinet secretary will do his best, to ensure that communities such as Levenmouth and Glenrothes are recipients of more money from cashback for communities in the future.
I was invited by Bill Aitken to participate in a more consensual approach to the debate—which comes naturally to me, as members know—but having heard Trish Marwick I will just continue with business as usual. Her speech was shamelessly partisan and completely misrepresented the past, to which I will refer later. I do not wish to add to Kenny MacAskill's woes this week, but I will press several constituency issues in my contribution. However, if the minister gives more resources to the east end of Glasgow, I will back off happily, join in the consensus and just ignore Trish Marwick along the way.
Let us get the context right. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was ground breaking. It answered the concerns of many who could not stomach, let alone make sense of, a situation in which known criminals could live lavish lifestyles while ostensibly living on benefits when there was no viable explanation of how their money was accumulated other than through illegal activity.
As many members will remember, the Irish Government took action following the dreadful murders of the journalist Veronica Guerin and Garda Jerry McCabe, which inspired the British Government to act. The passing of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was a decisive measure that put to rest the notion that actions to recover assets somehow trampled on fundamental freedoms. The impact of the legislation is disruptive and costly to criminal networks, and it represents, even if only in a small way, some payback and compensation to those communities that carry disproportionately the consequences of crime in our society. That is the central argument that I put to the Government today, because it is losing the emphasis on the collective community nature of that impact.
I have spoken in the chamber many times about the extent and consequences of crime in my constituency. Too often, I am confronted, as many of us are, with the human reality of such crimes and the dreadful consequences for individuals and families. More broadly, we need to look at the price paid by everyone in the street where the crime takes place and everyone in that community. If a drug dealer seems to act with impunity and if street violence is the currency of their crime, I have no doubt that certain communities pay too high a price. Gangsters intimidate not just individuals but entire neighbourhoods as they do their work.
I can tell the Parliament, and the people of my communities in greater Easterhouse can certainly tell it, that they contribute disproportionately to the funds that the minister is distributing. My central point to the minister today is this: should those communities not get a fair share of that cashback? If they give disproportionately to the fund, they should get it back disproportionately. If, as Robert Brown said in a powerful speech, that money is to be truly diversionary, we have to spend it where it is most needed. I argue that my constituency needs more money.
The minister will know that I have submitted numerous parliamentary questions on the subject. The Scottish Government cannot tell us what the communities in the east end of Glasgow contribute to the fund, although I am sure that the matter can be pursued further. Perhaps this is not the exact figure, but I hazard a guess that it is more than the £306,000 that we receive back. If the minister has more money to announce and wants to give any of it to the east end of Glasgow, I will happily pay him tribute in my press release, but I do not think that £306,000 is a fair amount of cashback for the east end of Glasgow.
Surely it is disappointing that only 0.3 per cent of the total budget for rugby has been spent in the east end of Glasgow. Glasgow East rugby club is a very strong group, with excellent leadership, and is willing and able to work with the most vulnerable young people in the east end, but it does not have the resources to do that. Surely that is exactly what proceeds of crime resources were meant for. Surely that is what cashback for communities was meant for.
I am happy to check with the SRU. The rugby scheme was launched in the east end of Glasgow, and the SRU took the Calcutta cup there. There were international players, and young kids from the east end were there. The SRU is showing willing, but I am more than happy to speak to Colin Thomson, the head of youth development, to ensure that the SRU does what it can. There is certainly no attempt by the Scottish Government—and, I would lay a wager, no attempt by the Scottish Rugby Union—not to grow the game in the east end of Glasgow.
Let me be clear: I am not implying any ill intent on the part of the Scottish Government; my argument is that the Government is spreading the money so thinly across the whole of Scotland that it is not focused appropriately. I have had representations about the announcement that the Government made in the east end of Glasgow, and the people I work with are deeply frustrated: they see all the press about it, but when they want to develop grass-roots rugby and get to the young people they have not yet reached, they find that they do not have the full resources to do so.
If the minister wants to correct me or to give me more resources, I will be more than happy to accept, but I ask him to accept that reality—that we are not getting the targeted resources that we need.
Will the member give way?
I need to press on, if the member does not mind.
I will pull the argument together. We cannot afford to allow the funding to be allocated on too broad a basis, in which case it might lose its impact. Bill Aitken was right: there needs to be a coherent link between the resources that are seized and the resources that are spent. I honestly think that the Government's approach means that we are losing the distinctiveness of the resources that are being raised. We must say to young people and everyone who commits crimes in our communities that we will take their resources and spend them where they have caused the most harm. The identity of the resources is being lost.
Cashback for communities is a very small compensation for those who have to live with crime. As Richard Baker said, we need to be more assertive in pursuing and applying the legislation. We should not let the resources become just another general fund for the Scottish Government. We need to make the programme distinctive and ensure that the money is spent in a way that demonstrates that crime does not pay in Scotland and that resources will be given back to those who suffer from crime the most.
All members will agree that the cashback for communities scheme is very worth while and that excellent work is being done to support a range of organisations across the country, including some in my constituency. Perversely, it is a fund that we would prefer not to have—we would prefer it if no proceeds were gained from crime—but I suspect that the utopia of a society free from crime is beyond even the present excellent Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
I recall visiting the Irish Criminal Assets Bureau back in 2000, along with my colleague Roseanna Cunningham, to consider how it was developing a similar initiative. Margaret Curran has made reference to what has been done in Ireland. The Irish have been trailblazers in the seizing of criminal assets from individuals. Their bureau has proved to be very successful over the years and set the template for the system that was introduced in Scotland.
I recall from my time dealing with the legislation on the Justice 1 Committee, some six years ago, that it had cross-party support. I recall that, when we considered it, there was a considerable level of uncertainty on the part of the then Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace, on what would actually happen with the assets that were seized under the legislation. One suggestion was for the assets seized within a particular constabulary area to remain in that area. That idea was pushed aside on the basis that it would have meant that the bigger force areas probably gained disproportionately from the overall scheme. The general view was that, whatever happened with the money, it should go into a general pot and the whole of Scottish society should benefit. That is why I think that the present scheme is worth while and working well in its present form.
There are a number of issues with the way in which the scheme is operating at present. If I have one criticism, it is that the pot of money is too small. That is not to say that I want to encourage more people to get involved in criminal activity so that we can seize their assets; rather, I want to consider what more we can do to seize more assets so that communities can benefit. I hope that the minister can expand in his closing remarks on what measures the Government is considering to increase the size of the pot.
Retribution is one of the key three key pillars of our justice system in Scotland. Although the cashback for communities system is not exactly a direct form of retribution, it is an important signal to communities that, where we can, we will seize the assets of those who profit from criminal activity and use the money for wider community benefit. I agree that it is not the chain gang, but it certainly sends out a clear message that we will do everything possible to seize criminals' assets and make better use of them in our communities.
I want to pick up on another two issues linked to cashback for communities. The first is on the groups who can apply for the present scheme, and the second is on the groups who could apply if the present scheme was altered. A number of organisations in my constituency, from YouthLink Scotland to the midnight football league and the Scottish Rugby Union through Falkirk rugby club, have all benefited from money that is provided through the scheme. However, I have been working with a number of organisations in my community that would benefit from the scheme if they had the capacity to develop their organisation so that it qualified. A couple of those organisations are Camelon Juniors football club and Dunipace Juniors football club. Those clubs sit at the heart of the local community and have facilities that, with a wee bit of extra investment, could be opened up for much wider benefit.
Those clubs are working to become community football clubs under the Scottish Football Association scheme. If they succeed in securing that status, they will be able to apply for funding from the cashback for communities fund in its present form. However, the clubs have limited capacity to become community football clubs because of the number of volunteers who are involved with them. One of my real frustrations, which those clubs have, too—I think that a couple of members have mentioned this—is that they need just a wee bit of support to help them gain the status of community club, which would open the door to cashback for communities funding. For almost a year and a half now, I have been trying to get Falkirk Council to work with those clubs, not to give them money but to have officers work with them to develop their capacity and to help them become community football clubs and then apply for funding through the scheme. However, it has been like drawing teeth, because the council does not regard providing such help as necessarily part of its responsibility, as it does not deal with the administration of the funds.
If there is one message that I hope the minister takes away from my contribution to the debate, it is the need to ensure that local authorities, which have the capacity to assist organisations to develop themselves and potentially benefit from the scheme, regard themselves as part of the way in which we can unlock the money and get it invested in some of our most deprived communities through those organisations. I hope that the Government will consider how we ensure that local authorities do more to achieve that.
The second area that I want to pick up on is that of organisations who cannot apply for the present scheme, namely professional football clubs. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the excellent work that is done by Stenhousemuir Football Club in my constituency, which should be congratulated on securing promotion to the second division on Saturday past. The club does fantastic work with some 5,000 kids per week and uses its all-weather football pitch for a range of initiatives that it runs in the local community. However, because it is a professional football club, it cannot benefit from the cashback for communities scheme. The club operates on a shoestring and does not have much more than junior clubs, which can benefit from the scheme. In my view, small clubs such as Stenhousemuir, which have a very important part to play in our communities and have facilities that, with a wee bit of extra investment, could be opened up more to the community and provide wider benefits to it, should also have the opportunity to benefit from the scheme.
I hope that the cashback for communities scheme will continue to benefit a range of organisations, but we must consider how we can evolve it more effectively so that more organisations benefit from it, whether under the existing rules or under rules that we amend to allow other organisations to get money from the fund.
We first considered in October 2001 what became the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which introduced the present system. As Margaret Curran said, we were following Ireland's example—Ireland blazed the trail. As we know, it was recognised that using in the act the concept of being beyond reasonable doubt as a basis for confiscating assets would be insufficient and inappropriate, because criminals are adept at hiding their assets and avoiding prosecution. The act allowed a change to civil proceedings, which was an important step that has benefited communities.
I was involved in the original debate because I was the Deputy Minister for Justice at the time. As Michael Matheson said, we debated how the money would be applied best and whether it should be left with individual constabularies or centralised. We also debated how we could promote a virtuous circle in which intelligence-led policing was supported by communities, with the result that more criminals were caught or recognised and prosecuted. We must never lose sight of that virtuous circle. In a powerful speech, Margaret Curran said that it is difficult to get the balance right between Scotland-wide distribution and distribution to communities that provide the intelligence that leads to confiscation. That balance should err on the side of the communities that provide information so that we retain the virtuous circle.
I was concerned that, at the outset, the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office wanted to address the big criminals and to attack the people who had big amounts of money. My concern then, which remains, is that those people are difficult to catch. They are adept at hiding their assets and dispersing them among relatives and abroad. I ask the minister to comment in his summing-up on assets that are dispersed in the rest of the United Kingdom or abroad.
We have met the European Police Office to discuss such matters, many of which are more for the Serious Organised Crime Agency than for the SCDEA, given their respective jurisdictions. I give the member and every other member the absolute assurance that we are seeking to map organised crime and to work with other jurisdictions, especially that south of the border. As Mr Simpson says, such matters also concern activity abroad.
I hope that that means that our larger criminals' Spanish assets, as well as their UK assets, are being confiscated.
The principle is local reparation, which must be visible, so that communities see that their efforts are being rewarded. That is the incentivisation that we need and that is the most appropriate approach.
Youth diversion is a fundamental concept. The fund that uses criminal assets was preceded by money that was raised in part by a Daily Record campaign, which the then Scottish Executive matched. Systems were tested as we disbursed the modest sum of £500,000 to communities. What we learned from that was useful. Communities that had some capacity were able to apply and to develop schemes. Michael Matheson, Bill Aitken, Tricia Marwick and others referred to the fact that some communities are so damaged that their organisational capacity has been hugely impaired. We must have a way to work with local authorities and neighbouring communities to develop the necessary structures in such damaged communities. I hope that the minister will take on board the fact that cross-party support has been given to the concept of supporting the recruitment, development and training of volunteers to develop capacity further.
I had grave doubts when I saw that the scheme was being used to fund the under-21 Scotland football team. I thought that football at that level was sufficiently well off to provide for itself. However, my criticism was muted when I learned that the purpose of the funding was to replace an alcohol logo with one from cashback for communities, which may be appropriate in the circumstances. I have reservations about using the scheme to support wealthier clubs, but small clubs such as Stenhousemuir, the Stirling clubs and Alloa Athletic, which are not wealthy, need to be considered. I echo Michael Matheson's comments in that respect.
Given that we are all congratulating our communities, I ask members to join me in congratulating Alloa rugby football club on winning division 2 midlands of the Caledonian regional league. Linking into existing systems, the programme has been used to fund the appointment of Kris Burney as a rugby coach; it is not totally novel but provides one more link in the chain to promote rugby among secondary 1 and 2 children, which will be important. Eighteen or 19 groups in my region of Mid Scotland and Fife have received awards, all of which are welcome.
I join Tricia Marwick in paying particular attention to communities such as Levenmouth, which has been devastated by drugs. Although some good drug treatment work is being done there—as Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Community Safety, will know—the promotion of the YMCA and other groups in the area is particularly welcome.
I welcome the updating of regulations on the issue. I do not know whether we have re-examined the question of what constitutes a criminal lifestyle, but that needs to be done. I am not sure whether we have looked again at the threshold at which the programme applies. I did not win this battle at the time, but it is important that we focus on intermediate groups, such as drug dealers. The drug dealer campaign was particularly successful in persuading communities to give information, as they could see money coming back to them. Drug dealers do not have large sums of money, but it would be helpful if it could be demonstrated that such money was going back to communities. I hope that the minister will consider adjusting the scheme as we proceed.
Now that the scheme is working so well, we need to consider sustainability in the longer term. It is not just about one-off projects but about sustaining projects.
I welcome the generally positive tone that has been set across the chamber. Given the accusations that often fly about, especially on justice issues, it is nice to see that we can all nearly agree on something. It makes a pleasant change for me when making a speech to be able to agree with Richard Baker on anything, so I will start by doing so, in case that does not happen again for a long time.
It is important that we welcome the fact that we are taking funds out of the hands of some of our most hardened criminals and giving them back to the communities that those criminals blight. Cashback for communities has been an excellent example of joined-up thinking in action. It provides a successful example of how we can make our streets safer and stronger from both ends of the spectrum—from tackling the scourge of serious organised crime to diverting people away from crime by improving their life choices.
I pay tribute to the police and law enforcement agencies for the work that they have done in my local area to tackle drug abuse and supply. There has been a great deal of co-ordinated effort from those agencies to put criminal gangs out of business. Although plenty of work remains to be done, as many members have said, there have been some successes to date. They include operation hurricane in Lothian and Borders, which cut off a cocaine supply chain to Edinburgh and seized more than £64,000-worth of assets. In West Lothian, a ground-breaking multi-agency initiative—operation focus—has led to 63 arrests of suspected drug dealers and has been well received by targeted and assisted communities. Chief Superintendent Ronnie Liddle said:
"It is not only the scale of this operation which has made it different from any other but the level of close working across the agencies is unprecedented."
I am pleased that that committed partnership approach is now paying dividends in our communities, and I hope that it will ensure that there is no hiding place for criminals in the future.
It is satisfying that, through cashback for communities, people can reap a double benefit from those successful police operations. We are not only taking seized drugs off the streets; we are turning seized cash from those criminals into positive alternatives for young people.
The initiative makes a contribution in many of the key battlegrounds for improving Scottish society, whether preventing crime, reducing underage drinking, improving health, tackling obesity or building our young people's sense of self-esteem and inclusion in society in general. The scheme also typifies a more positive approach to tackling antisocial behaviour and to young people in general. Although the measures are in place to deal with bad behaviour where necessary, I welcome a tone that steers away from the many negative stereotypes that are often portrayed in our media of young people and their effects on society.
Any attempt to classify all young people as yobs or to tarnish the whole of the younger generation serves only to alienate young people and does nothing to make our communities safer. Although I would not go as far as hoping to see the Government hug a hoodie any time soon, it is worth emphasising that it is only a small minority of young people who are involved in criminal behaviour. Indeed, young people are most likely to be the victims of crime.
I received an e-mail this morning about a separate issue, but it was from two goths from Edinburgh city centre. They were asking for action to be taken to provide a community activity and a place for them to spend time in at the weekend. They talked of their worry about being on the streets because they are the victims of crimes perpetrated by people who see their lifestyle as different. That was an important lesson for me about how people by whom we are often intimidated themselves feel intimidated and under threat. We should always remember that the vast majority of young people are a credit to their communities and that all our young people deserve better life chances—something that the scheme is helping to provide.
The cashback for communities scheme provides many opportunities for people to develop their interests and skills in a wide range of areas, working in partnership with sporting, arts and youth organisations. Although much of the initial emphasis was on the development of opportunities in team sports such as twilight football or rugby, as someone who is not particularly sporty I was pleased to see the introduction of a cultural strand to increase the scope of the scheme further for those who are not attracted to football and rugby.
I was nevertheless pleased to see funding dedicated to—and increasing participation in—girls' football, with nearly £297,000 being provided to the Scottish Football Association over three years. That will offer girls opportunities in their local areas. People often start hanging around with the wrong crowd simply because there is little else for them to do and there are no positive choices for them to make. That problem does not affect just young men, so I am pleased that nearly 27,000 girls are already participating in football in Scotland. The funding is much needed and will help to progress the game as well as offer a positive alternative to drink, drugs and offending for girls as well as boys.
The YouthLink Scotland strand has already supported many youth projects that work with some of our most vulnerable groups. Members have paid tribute to individual projects throughout the debate, and I pay tribute to a small number of projects in Edinburgh that have been successful. Edinburgh has so far received £220,000 from the first two rounds of the YouthLink allocation alone, which has benefited a diverse range of projects including the Leith Acorn youth centre. Funding has enabled the centre to put youth work out on the streets of Leith at weekends, at the most difficult times. Another successful project is the Rock Trust, which supports young parents throughout the city.
As with any initiative of this size, there will always be some debate about how the funds could best be distributed, and members will always want more for their areas. I hope that ministers will keep that aspect of the scheme under constant review. However, one thing is certain: cashback for communities is already making a difference throughout the country. With more than 100,000 participants so far, the evidence speaks for itself. We owe it to young people to develop more such opportunities. After all, they, as well as our communities, are the ones who will pay the price of crime for years to come.
I support the amendment in the name of my colleague Richard Baker.
The cabinet secretary's motion quite correctly refers to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which became law under the then Scottish Labour-led Executive. That act applies throughout the UK but includes specific provisions to take account of differences in Scots criminal and civil law and procedure. It enhanced existing powers of confiscation following criminal conviction by aligning the previously separate schemes for drug trafficking and other crimes on an all-crimes basis, and by strengthening the investigation and enforcement powers. It also introduced new powers of civil recovery, thereby allowing the state to claim the proceeds of criminal activity in cases in which it has proved impossible to prosecute or secure a conviction.
In my view, the 2002 act is a significant example of Holyrood and Westminster acting together in the interests of citizens across the UK. Despite some initial and, if I may say so, spurious sabre rattling about the Sewel convention, the then SNP justice spokesperson, my good friend Michael Matheson, acknowledged in the debate thereon that it allowed the Scottish Executive to
"become the enforcing agency for civil recovery in Scotland"
and that
"Money recovered by civil recovery and criminal confiscation in Scotland will go into the Scottish budget."—[Official Report, 24 October 2001; Vol 14, c 3251.]
Mr Matheson was correct, and the SNP was right on that day, nearly eight years ago, to side with all other members at Holyrood and agree to the Sewel motion.
Over the years, the 2002 act has allowed more cases to be brought to court, and the new powers of investigation and enforcement that it contains have allowed more assets to be traced successfully. The money that has been gathered under the civil recovery scheme has hit crooks where it hurts most and the scheme has made it possible for those ill-gotten gains to be channelled into projects located in the communities that have been most seriously affected by crime and into schemes that have the aim of diverting those young people who are most at risk from falling into patterns of offending and which allow them, instead, to work together to build their self-confidence and provide them with a range of opportunities to develop their innate talents. That is a good thing.
Under Governments of all political complexions at Holyrood, a strategy has been followed whereby the proceeds of crime are used for the benefit of those neighbourhoods that are more vulnerable to underworld activities. That has been the correct path to follow, and I congratulate Mr Ewing and Mr MacAskill, and their Labour predecessors, Cathy Jamieson and Hugh Henry, on taking that tack. In April of last year, the total amount gathered under the 2002 act reached £21 million; thanks to my good friend Bill Aitken, I now understand that it has risen to £23.5 million. The annual figures range from £4,424,313 in 2006-07 to £2,847,037 in 2007-08. Those sums have been focused on projects in vulnerable communities. That strategy has been successful and should continue to be followed.
An outstanding example of the effectiveness of that strategy can be found in my constituency at the Temple/Shafton youth project that is popularly known as the hut, which I believe has received just over £40,000 in two awards under the scheme. I assure the minister and the Parliament that that money has been put to very good use. The hut is open seven days a week and is used by around 150 young people from the neighbourhood and surrounding localities. It has used the awards to put together an attractive and innovative range of activities, including arts and crafts, sports, information technology training, homework classes and advice sessions. In addition, the project arranges a number of visits, outings and away days that are aimed at broadening horizons and encouraging project members' personal development. Again, that is a good thing.
Young people regularly tidy up the area in the north-west of the city as part of the clean Glasgow campaign; others take part in the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme. Many local people and surrounding communities have benefited directly from that work. Indeed, the success of the hut's approach was recognised by the Evening Times last December, when the project was awarded the paper's young community champions award for the west of Glasgow. That success whereby young people, supported by Government, come together and show what young people can do in positively contributing to the community is a very good thing. I agree with Shirley-Anne Somerville that the vast majority of young people are a credit to their communities and to Scotland. Only a tiny minority of young people cause problems, often for other young people—a fact that bears re-emphasising.
The hut is the sort of project that the proceeds of crime money, via the cashback for communities scheme, should continue to support. I would welcome a cast-iron assurance from Mr Ewing in his summing-up speech that the Scottish Government will continue to follow a strategy that has, at its heart, a commitment to supporting projects in communities across Scotland that suffer—a word that I use advisedly, as did my colleague Margaret Curran—disproportionately from the activities of career criminals. Clarity on that point would be welcome. There is a continuing need to give something back to those communities that are most directly affected by the activities of our organised criminal gangs. Government must continue to recognise its duty in that respect and must not take its eye off the ball.
I welcome the progress that has been made over the past eight years, but further progress needs to be made. There is no room for complacency. On that basis, I ask members to support the Labour amendment. I also welcome the SNP motion and the Liberal amendment.
It gives me great pleasure to speak in this afternoon's debate. The substantial amount of cash that has been levered in by the cashback for communities initiative is testament to Scotland's increasing success in tackling serious organised crime. From such success, communities should quite rightly reap benefit. That is the very essence of what cashback for communities is about.
Dirty money, built up on the pain and heartache of communities, is now being used to assist communities. Let me share with members my direct experience of that. After I was elected in 2007, one of my first visits was to operation reclaim, which is run jointly by Strathclyde Police and Sidekix with support from a variety of community partners. That day, I met Police Constable Harry Faulds, who was out playing a game of football with youngsters in the Milton area.
The Milton area is no stranger to serious organised crime; I made that point in a members' business debate that I secured in order to praise the community activists who have taken a stance against such crime. With members' indulgence, I will mention just a few of those activists. Alex O'Kane, for instance, has had his home and family targeted over the years because of his stand against drug dealers, who have for a long time peddled their misery in the local area and beyond. Indeed, only a few months ago, Alex O'Kane's house was subject to a reprisal petrol bomb attack. It would be wrong not to mention Councillor Billy McAllister, the local SNP councillor, who has also been subject to many serious threats against his person. Such people who take a stand in communities and become victims themselves need the Parliament's support.
Let me describe an incident that perhaps brings home the extent of the threat that exists in our communities. When Councillor McAllister and I held a public meeting in Lambhill—just along from the Milton community—just a few years ago, several hundred people attended. The MOT station next door to the meeting venue had been witness to the cold-blooded murder of a young man whose family was allegedly involved in organised crime. The shooting happened just a few hours before the meeting took place. After our speaking out against such criminality and violence at the public meeting that night, a call was made to our local SNP mobile phone number, saying that criminals had been in attendance at the meeting. The anonymous caller said that, if people continued to speak out, people would be hurt. The threat was, "Stay quiet or else."
I mention that incident in today's debate because it is important that we never forget the pain and misery that such organised criminals cause to our communities. We must acknowledge the truly brave and heroic actions that communities take daily to stand up against the perpetrators of organised crime. It is just that the money that is recovered from such criminals is used to support our communities, and that is precisely what the cashback for communities scheme is doing in Milton and throughout north Glasgow.
I return to operation reclaim. The police and sports coaches are working with young people in various locations in north Glasgow. PC Harry Faulds plays football or rugby with young people who are at risk of falling into crime, as opposed to chasing them round the housing scheme. Such diversionary activities have broken down territorial boundaries and led to a dramatic fall in the local crime figures.
The cabinet secretary and the minister are aware of that. A few months ago, I visited Petershill Juniors during one of Mr MacAskill's ministerial visits. The Scottish Government had provided £15,000 to operation reclaim for intensive work with 120 known gang members in the local area over a six-month period to turn them away from organised crime. Perhaps the cashback for communities scheme will allow such schemes to be expanded. Longer-term funding for large-scale diversionary activities such as operation reclaim, which could be enhanced and expanded, could be secured. That would be a positive thing. The existence of more large-scale projects with longer-term funding would represent a positive initiative for communities from the cashback for communities scheme.
Every penny that we spend on the cashback for communities scheme should improve the futures of our communities and reduce the number of youngsters who turn to crime and antisocial behaviour. In other words, we are talking about building a legacy. In our discussions in the chamber on the Commonwealth games in 2014, we have spoken a lot about building a legacy. I firmly believe that we should find a way of twinning the cashback for communities scheme's ability to fund a legacy by lifting communities out of the grasp of organised criminals and raising the aspirations of the next generation with the hope and vibrancy that we wish to develop through having the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. The cabinet secretary should consider how the social legacy that we wish to build from the cashback for communities scheme and the Commonwealth games in Glasgow in 2014 can be developed through people working in partnership in a structured and co-ordinated fashion. I hope that that can be achieved, although I appreciate that the Commonwealth games legacy starts with a deficit of £150 million.
I welcome the debate and its consensual nature. Before the debate, I looked at the figures for Glasgow. Sixteen cashback for communities projects were funded in the east end of Glasgow in the first two rounds of funding; the funding for those projects came to £266,000. In the past couple of years, my city of Glasgow has received £680,000. We should say thank you for that money, although we are entitled to it. As a Glasgow MSP, I want to get more money for Glasgow, which is natural, but we should clearly say that Glasgow receives cashback for communities money and benefits from it.
The Liberal Democrats have long supported the use of diversionary projects and peer support to tackle the root causes of crime in our communities. By providing opportunities and activities for young people, the cashback for communities programme has made excellent progress in giving young people something valuable to do in communities throughout Scotland and in diverting the minority who are responsible for crime and antisocial behaviour away from such activities. I reinforce something that I have often said before—a minority of young people become involved in antisocial behaviour. The vast majority of young people in my constituency and, I am sure, throughout Scotland, do not get involved in it. It is clear that the cashback for communities programme helps those who do.
The success of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which has been instrumental in making the cashback for communities programme possible, is worth mentioning. Since that act was passed, it has raised almost £23.5 million, more than £12 million of which has now been successfully reinvested in diversionary and participatory programmes for young people. We hear about criminals moving money around, and moving it to Spain and elsewhere on the continent. We can all do more to try to get the proceeds of their criminality back off them. The more money we can have for cashback, the more money we will be able to spend on programmes.
I do not want to take away from the fact that serious problems still exist. There was news in Edinburgh just yesterday that a group of young people had caused £3,000 of damage to a nursery and disabled people's drop-in centre. The damage is impossible to justify, so why did they do it? I expect that the young people involved may even struggle to rationalise it to themselves. In his speech, the cabinet secretary said that we have to give young people something to do. They often find themselves without things to do, which is why they become bored. When they become bored, they go on the rampage, or commit antisocial acts.
The cabinet secretary referred to a scheme that started early on in my constituency—Go4it. The scheme, which was one of the good things done by the Labour administration in Edinburgh, was introduced by Donald Anderson. It was a new idea to get people involved in things during the summer, to stop them getting bored. The scheme has been extremely successful and has spread across Edinburgh.
It is clear that the rhetoric about being tough on crime and the short-term enforcement measures that have characterised Scotland's justice system have not always worked. We all need to find better ways of discouraging young people from committing offences. All too often, communities have been left with the original bill for the short-term enforcement strategy, as well as the new bill for the damage when the strategy does not succeed. What is required is a continuing shift in culture towards prevention and rehabilitation.
Where investment has been made, the benefits have already been felt. I recently attended the finals of the Bank of Scotland midnight league at Tynecastle—and perhaps now, because everybody else is doing it, I should congratulate Heart of Midlothian on finishing third in the league, which means that the team will be in Europe next season. The midnight league event was attended by Andrew Driver, a young man whom many people will know. He is a very successful player at Tynecastle. His example for all the young people was excellent.
Since their inception, midnight leagues across Scotland have been instrumental in lowering levels of youth crime. Last year, Inspector Alan Keith of the antisocial behaviour unit of Grampian Police, Aberdeen division, noted that there was
"a significant reduction in youth calls"
while the 2007 midnight leagues were taking place. A similar point was made by another member earlier on. Inspector Bob Wardrop of Lothian and Borders Police remarked that midnight leagues were an
"excellent way of getting involved with young people in the community".
They keep young people away from antisocial behaviour.
There have been other initiatives in Edinburgh. The Edinburgh youth cafe has been going for a long time, but it has now benefited from a cashback award and is going from strength to strength—not just in providing a wide range of activities, but in working directly with young people who want to re-engage with their families or communities.
I know that there has been some concern about how money is distributed under the cashback programme, and I might suggest that there will never be enough money. However, although I do not question the fairness of the distribution process, I agree that it could benefit from greater detail and, perhaps, more transparency—especially with regard to the overall strategy. Thinking back to Fergus Ewing's remarks on 2 April, I would say that I fully accept that distributing money effectively across a whole country is an extremely difficult exercise. That is precisely why a more detailed national strategy is required.
YouthLink Scotland and several other independent agencies, such as the SFA, play valuable roles in deciding how funding is allocated. I encourage the Government to continue working with those agencies to strengthen relationships, so that funding allocations can be better co-ordinated. Once funding has been allocated, communities should play a more active part in deciding exactly how the money will be spent. Communities know where the problems lie, and are often best placed to consider different prevention options. Further Government engagement with safer neighbourhood and community police teams, as well as with young people, has the potential to provide valuable input into how best funding can be targeted.
Real progress in developing preventive and diversionary projects has been made, but a lot more could be done. In the first six months of the previous financial year, a record £2.4 million-worth of criminal assets were recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which is an average of £13,000 a day. If the funding is targeted effectively, Scotland can make significant progress in addressing youth crime and antisocial behaviour.
I support the amendment in the name of Robert Brown.
We welcome the Scottish Government's cashback for communities scheme and the millions of pounds that have been collected via the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and redirected into a range of activities for young people, from sport to culture and the arts. Criminals must learn that crime does not pay, but taking that lesson and turning it into a positive venture for our young people is very powerful indeed.
It is important that we encourage our children and young people and direct them to take part in positive community activities. All too often, the lifestyles of those who are involved in criminal activities can look tempting to our young people: nice house, big car, money to burn and what is perceived to be the respect of the community but is much more often fear. In times of economic hardship, what may appear to be a quick and easy way to make money will be all too tempting to many.
Our young people have energy to burn, and the different activities and schemes that are on offer allow them to focus that energy in rewarding and positive ways. In the Borders, for example, cashback for communities money is helping to fund Selkirk Dry Bar Association's drop-in youth centre for 12 to 18-year-olds, which has games, computers and music, and provides other activities such as dance and movement workshops, visits to other places and a cookery course that covers everything from cooking to shopping and budgeting. The cashback for communities programme is also providing the £2 million that has been invested in sports facilities in and around deprived areas and the £1.4 million that has been invested to deliver free rugby playing and coaching opportunities.
As Bob Doris has pointed out, with the London Olympics looming and the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth games only five years away, cashback for communities money gives us a great chance to engage with our future athletes, to educate them about healthy lifestyle choices and to help develop their sporting abilities.
An important by-product of the scheme is that it brings positive role models to the attention of children and places them at the forefront of their minds. Many of our children are brought up in areas where, as I have said, fear is mistaken for respect and the local gang leaders or Mr Bigs are the only ones with money and commodities. In those areas, crime becomes a viable employment choice and is run like a business. When there are no other obvious options, why would a child aspire to anything else?
Crime does not pay—that is the message that the Government needs to send out. Last year, the Crown Office reported that it had recovered almost £23.5 million since the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 came into force. We congratulate the Crown Office on that, and on the important work that it and the Procurator Fiscal Service do in recovering ill-gotten gains. However, we must go further.
Serious organised crime is a major problem in Scotland. Our police and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency do a great job in tracking down people who attempt to shroud themselves in legitimate business ventures and hide behind layers of criminals, thinking themselves untouchable. The best lesson that we can teach our children is that such people are not untouchable and that they cannot be protected by their assets.
Those people deal in human misery, exposing children to drugs and exploiting vulnerable people through prostitution or trafficking, and we need to launch a fresh offensive. As members such as Margaret Curran and Michael Matheson have said, we need to consider what is being done in other countries, such as Canada, and particularly Ireland, where the Criminal Assets Bureau uses a multi-agency, multi-disciplinary approach and, most important, the onus is on the criminal to prove that their assets were got through legitimate means, rather than the burden of proof being on the prosecuting authority, which is the situation that our Crown Office is in.
The cashback scheme is a worthwhile venture and it is making a difference, showing young people that crime and antisocial behaviour are not the way forward and opening up a range of options and vocations and a different kind of future for many of our young people. The Scottish Conservatives want more money to be made available so that we can expand on the 278 youth projects that currently benefit from cashback for communities funding. However, to do that we might have to make further changes to our legislation so that we can go after Scotland's Mr Bigs and show that crime does not pay.
We will support the Government's motion and the Labour and Liberal Democrat amendments.
It is always welcome to get the last penny out of the drug baron's pocket, and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides an opportunity to do that. Working with the UK Government, we delivered an effective piece of legislation. Without the 2002 act, we would not be debating the cashback for communities scheme in the first place.
The prosecution of criminals has always taken priority and it will continue to do so. However, it has always been unacceptable that the ownership of the proceeds of crime remained immune from legal challenge where criminal proceedings were not available. The 2002 act gives the police the power to seize the cash of suspected drug dealers. The principle and ethos of the legislation is that the moneys that are seized should be reinvested in communities that are affected by crime.
Like other members, I have seen so-called drug barons flaunting their wealth in communities, with their flash cars and luxury homes, and showing contempt for authority. As Bill Aitken and others have said, that sets the wrong example to future generations. That is why the humiliating—to them—process of recovering drug dealers' wealth is to be welcomed. However, despite the best efforts of the many people who are involved in the process, I am not convinced that we recover anything like as much cash as we should. Richard Baker is correct to say that we should not blame anybody for that, because we recognise the challenges that are involved, but the moneys that are recovered are minute compared with the sums that criminals obtain. Using the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, "Panorama" found that, in the past three years, the Scottish unit that is responsible for criminal confiscations froze £60 million of assets but managed to recover just £6 million of that. We all find that unacceptable. Collaboration between all the relevant agencies is important.
On regeneration, as Margaret Curran has said, our communities are held back because of the unacceptable criminal activities that take place within them. Tricia Marwick mentioned that as well. The Parliament must represent not the minority but the majority of people in our communities, who live responsible lives.
We welcome the cashback for communities programme, but we do so on the basis that the communities that are most affected by crime will see the recovered money. There are examples of cashback money being invested in my constituency. Bob Doris helpfully mentioned operation reclaim, which has been running successfully for the past five or six years, following the tragic murder of Firsat Dag in Sighthill in 2001. The additional funding from the cashback programme has been welcome. Reidvale adventure playground in my constituency has also benefited.
There are many good examples of activities for the young, but as others have said, we need more transparency in how projects are identified for funding. I ask the minister to clarify the process in his closing speech. Does a project board decide how funds are invested? It is important that the process is transparent and that we move forward on that basis.
Those who have suffered because of criminal activities should see the proceeds of crime. As Michael Matheson and Tricia Marwick said, we should ensure that our communities are empowered to apply for funding. That is another important aspect. All too often, it is those who are more informed or are considered more sophisticated whose applications for Government funding are successful. I am afraid to say that parts of my constituency such as Springburn, Ruchazie and Blackhill, Possilpark in Patricia Ferguson's constituency, and other areas have suffered dramatically because of drug barons. A number of members made the constructive point that those communities must be genuinely empowered to apply for funds.
We should also examine the basic criteria for funding. After all, we want the majority of it to be provided to communities rather than to the authorities that fight crime. I know that certain police authorities in England and Wales have benefited from the cash that has been seized. Richard Baker raised the possibility of police chief constables looking for up to 50 per cent of the assets seized. I acknowledge that the cabinet secretary is dealing with that issue. I understand why police officers and other authorities that fight crime might find the prospect of keeping the cash appealing, and I realise that some might even argue that such a move would incentivise police officers, but I do not think that anyone should need to be incentivised in dealing with this matter. Instead, we should be motivated by our determination to humiliate criminals by stripping them of their wealth and ensuring that they get the message that they will not benefit from our communities and that we will stand up to them and their associates.
The "Panorama" programme that was transmitted earlier in the year filmed Michael Voudouri, who pocketed more than £3 million from an international fraud scheme that he ran. According to the programme, Mr Voudouri, who served a prison sentence for his crime, now lives in a £2 million house in the Stirlingshire town of Bridge of Allan—in Richard Simpson's area, I understand—and drives a £60,000 car. We have to address the public's concern that although we deal with the perpetrators of crime, their families and associates still benefit from those crimes. Indeed, Bill Aitken has made the same point on a number of occasions. We must send a very clear message to those individuals that we will ensure that the law is on our side instead of, as Richard Baker has pointed out, the legal aid system apparently being on their side.
Given the member's point that we should tackle not only the criminals and Mr Bigs but their associates, has he made a link in his own mind between solving the problem of how we get hold of these people and their assets, and the sections on serious and organised crime in the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, particularly the proposal to make it an offence not to disclose any knowledge of serious organised criminal activity? Has the Labour Party reached a view as to whether it will support that measure?
It would be completely wrong of us to draw conclusions on any section of the bill before we have interrogated it. However, as Bill Butler and Richard Simpson have pointed out, the issue of reasonable doubt was dealt with in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to ensure that the benefit of the doubt fell on the prosecution rather than on the perpetrators of crime.
I ask the minister to reflect on some of the issues that have been raised in this consensual debate. Indeed, it has been proven this afternoon that we can reach a consensus on justice issues. However, the debate has also been challenging, with Margaret Curran in particular making some robust points about the criteria and the need to ensure that the communities that are most affected by crime feel that their needs have been identified. Those points must be dealt with.
I ask members to support Richard Baker's amendment.
This afternoon, we heard many constructive comments from all parties right across the chamber. The tone of the debate has been mostly positive, at times even amiable; indeed, it appeared at one point to stray into bonhomie. "Whatever next?" one might ask.
We also listened to some rarely heard assertions. Margaret Curran, for example, stated that she was known best of all for the consensual tone of her remarks. Shirley-Anne Somerville spoke up for the interests of goths, who apparently are apprehensive of vandals and even, perhaps, huns. We even heard the assertion that Bill Aitken was once a young person. It has been an afternoon of unfamiliar terrain for old hands.
All members praised the basic idea of cashback, which is to use criminals' ill-gotten gains to benefit young people throughout Scotland. Shirley-Anne Somerville set out the argument crisply and succinctly, but all members acknowledged that the policy is excellent. As with all excellent policies, there were many competing bids for parenthood—unlike other policies, which often seem to be more like orphans—but whether the credit is due to previous justice ministers or deputies such as Dr Richard Simpson, who made an interesting speech, or the current cabinet secretary, Kenny MacAskill, does not matter as much as the fact that the programme is being delivered successfully throughout Scotland. We can all welcome that.
I do not want to be repetitive in the substantial time that I have for my speech, but it is fair to say that the first step is the apprehension and bringing to justice of drug dealers and other organised criminals.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Why not?
I am happy to assist the minister. He and other members have spoken about drug dealers, but does he accept that there is a significant problem with people trafficking, from which lots of money is made, albeit sometimes abroad? Will he say something about the ability to recover money from people traffickers?
Robert Brown is right to point to that particularly venal and abhorrent area of criminal activity. He will recall that he and I took part in a separate debate on the issue. The difficulties with apprehending those who are engaged in that vile trade are apparent to all of us and are to do with persuading people to give evidence or at least to remain here to give evidence. However, in principle, I accept that point and we will bear it in mind.
We start with the need to apprehend criminals—I pay tribute to the work of police officers throughout Scotland. Lothian and Borders Police's operation focus resulted in 66 arrests, 19 people being remanded, 44 being bailed and more than £50,000-worth of drugs being seized. Grampian Police's operation Lochnagar resulted in 155 arrests. Proceedings are on-going, so the numbers of individuals bailed and remanded have not yet been released, but £77,000-worth of drugs was seized. In a Tayside Police operation, seven individuals were apprehended—two are on bail awaiting trial and four were remanded in custody. In each case the police carried out those operations after a protracted, detailed and thorough effort to gain evidence, using methods such as undercover police officers. The police engaged fully with the communities that are most affected by drug dealing and carried out concerted raids on criminals' houses.
We must all acknowledge the excellent work that our police carry out daily throughout the country. I have mentioned campaigns in particular areas, but work is being done in all parts of the country. As I understand it, operation Lochnagar might be regarded as one of the most successful operations against crime ever carried out in Grampian. I mention that because although members are quite right to say that we can learn from other countries such as Canada and Ireland—various members have made good points about ways in which we might learn, and we are willing to do so—we should look at the good work that is carried out here at home first and give credit where it is due. Members will know that I am an unstinting and unswerving supporter of the police and the work that they do.
We have heard much about the activities that are funded by the cashback scheme. The cabinet secretary outlined the fact that 100,000 children have been assisted thus far and that tens of thousands more are about to receive the chance to participate in these schemes. More than £13 million has been invested in a range of projects for young people: £4 million to YouthLink, which I praise for its excellent, outstanding and effective work in administering many separate components throughout the country; £1.4 million to the SRU; £1.7 million to Scottish Sports Futures and basketballscotland; £2 million to the sports facilities fund—members have referred to facilities that have been funded by the scheme; £600,000 to Arts and Business in Scotland; £1.2 million to the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen; and £2.5 million to the SFA.
I do not think that anyone mentioned this in the debate, so I am sure that members will be pleased to hear that the SFA is one of only seven national associations to be awarded the new Union of European Football Associations grass-roots six-star membership. Cashback-funded projects were one of the main aspects of the submission to UEFA and the SFA is grateful for the support from the Scottish Government, which enabled it to deliver such a worthwhile programme for many people.
I will respond to as many as time permits. A number of members, particularly Bill Butler, who made a magnanimous and measured speech, talked about how the distribution of the funding reflects the level of deprivation and the communities that suffer most from the impact of crime. The distribution formula does reflect deprivation. I have it in front of me, but I do not think that I have sufficient time to read it all out; it is perhaps of interest to those who are interested in technicalities. However, I am assured that it reflects deprivation. That is an important point and I am happy to write to Bill Butler and other members on it in more detail. The scheme seeks to benefit more greatly the communities that need it most.
Many members, including Bill Aitken, Margaret Curran and Bob Doris, mentioned Glasgow. I praise the work carried out by the Strathclyde violence reduction unit led by John Carnochan and the community initiative to reduce violence, which provides £1.6 million in addition to the cashback money to tackle that serious and engrained problem in Glasgow.
Bob Doris said that Glasgow has benefited to the tune of £680,000 over the past three years. In fact, the figure is even better than that. YouthLink alone contributed £785,000 to Glasgow, which is £490,000 more than the next biggest beneficiary.
Michael Matheson made a detailed contribution about those who might or might not be entitled to apply and qualify for assistance under the cashback scheme. I understand that the football clubs that he mentioned could in fact have applied under the rules. Clubs do not have to be community clubs, but they do have to involve young people. Michael Matheson said that clubs do great work with young people in his constituency, so I hope that what I have said has reassured him and that he will act accordingly.
A number of members, including Bill Aitken, Margaret Curran and Tricia Marwick, referred to volunteering. I can confirm that volunteering is a huge focus for the cashback initiative. A great deal of volunteering is already taking place. For example, 1,700 volunteers each year are involved with the SFA strand of the cashback policy and 400 volunteers each year are involved with the SRU strand.
Members are right to say that we need to consider why people might be deterred from volunteering and that barriers exist that might prevent people who would otherwise be interested in volunteering for that kind of activity from doing so, but I am sure that members acknowledge that huge contributions are made by individuals throughout the country who carry out excellent volunteer work.
I hope I will not try the patience of members if I refer to a few of the projects that I have visited. They include the street rugby activity in Falkirk, which I visited on 27 February, and the twilight basketball programme in Inverness, which I visited on 8 May. The basketball scheme that operates in Glasgow has resulted in one young man, who is now 17, winning a scholarship to the United States of America through his basketball prowess. That is a terrific achievement and it shows what can stem from such a project.
Last month I attended the Scottish community wardens conference, at which I had the opportunity to speak to the individuals who are on the front line of tackling antisocial behaviour. There is great support for cashback for communities from community wardens, who are able to identify young people in our target audience and direct them to local activities.
Kathy Tooke, the community wardens manager in Renfrewshire, said:
"Wardens deal with antisocial behaviour on a daily basis. We know that not all young people in our communities are troublemakers but sometimes they feel as though there's not much for them to do. Through these CashBack activities I have seen kids and teenagers benefit enormously: their horizons have been broadened and their energies focussed. I am delighted that Wardens are able to direct young people to a host of CashBack activities in their local areas. I am excited to see these great projects continue."
I am pleased—
Will the minister give way?
Certainly.
Will the minister and his team consider the possibility that some of the victims of crime are children? That includes looked-after children, who are singularly disadvantaged in many respects and often have difficulty getting into such schemes. Will the minister consider whether such children could be given specific help from the scheme in future?
We are certainly happy to consider that suggestion, along with all the other suggestions that members have made in the debate. We will, as is customary, study members' contributions and consider specific suggestions. It would be helpful if members could provide more details on their suggestions in writing.
We are concerned to ensure that there are more things to do for girls, as well as for boys. Many of the cashback activities perhaps focus more on boys than girls, but I learned in Inverness on Monday that while the boys are playing football in the local football project, the girls are coming along, as girls may tend to do when there are boys about—
Oh!
Well, I thought that that was very interesting—[Interruption.]
Order. I ask members to settle down.
I thought that that was an uncontroversial statement, Presiding Officer, but if I have offended the sensitivities and sensibilities of any member, I humbly apologise.
I was going to say that as well as the football activities, which are provided by the community police and many other volunteers—the excellent upstanding citizens of Inverness—a mobile unit is provided by Action for Children where girls can, and do, go to get advice about sexual health and jewellery making, I believe.
I am told—[Interruption.]
Order. I ask members to cut down on the background noise.
I am sure members will be fascinated by this bit, Presiding Officer. I am told that some of the boys who play football are so interested and engaged in the prospect of learning jewellery making that they want to stop playing football and learn how to make jewellery, so they are obviously in touch with their feminine side—[Interruption.]
Order. The minister should be closing now.
All right, Presiding Officer, but I was only just warming up.
Shirley-Anne Somerville was absolutely right to say that only a minority of children in Scotland get in trouble. It is only a handful of that minority who pose a serious problem to Scottish society.
It is known that I am neither an acolyte nor disposed to sycophancy in any way. However, the strong leadership that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has shown in delivering record numbers of police and the lowest crime levels ever known in our land are matched only by the success of the cashback scheme, which we will all support this afternoon.