Chamber and committees

I am sorry that I cut you short, but we are tight for time. If you could share that information with the committee, that would be very much appreciated.

As you know, Scottish Government policy is very much in favour of rehabilitation. However, there is a disconnect between policy and what is happening both in the prison estate and outside it in other parts of the justice system. How is the Scottish Prison Service dealing with that? What are you doing to try to ensure that you can expand the rehabilitation programmes that are available within the prison estate? For example, we are often told that sex offenders who are voluntarily asking to have access to programmes and other forms of rehabilitation are unable to get that because it is just not there. Will you explain how you are trying to make that shift within the budgets that you have?

Thank you.

Will you focus on fire, because we will be coming to the other issues?

Do you accept that firefighters currently lack suitable decontamination facilities?

Firefighters have told me that guidance has not been issued. I understand that the guidance is being worked on, so perhaps the cabinet secretary could say when guidance will be issued by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The service told the committee that its capital funding has remained at £32.5 million over the past seven years, yet it needs at least £60 million per annum of investment. Is that level of underfunding acceptable?

It is to do with national jurisdiction for callings from custody. The cabinet secretary made specific mention of trials. To be absolutely clear, you are not talking just about the initial appearance from custody and this relates to all aspects of the criminal process. Pauline McNeill has already referred to agents, so presumably that would mean that witnesses would also have to go to a different part of the country to give evidence if this relates to all aspects of the criminal process. Can we have clarification of what “calling” means?

I am pleased to follow Russell Findlay, who makes a powerful case for a review, and to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.

We support the programme and efforts to work with young people, direct them to positive destinations and reduce reoffending. Cashback for communities is the continuation of a scheme to reinvest the proceeds of crime that was first established by Scottish Labour in Government in 2006. That, in turn, drew from the framework in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which was introduced by the Labour Government of the time.

Two decades on, with the challenges of Tory austerity and the pandemic, there is absolutely no doubt that youth services in Scotland are in a sorry state. However, as we know, young people still face many challenges. The diverse activities that the minister has spoken about are a clear component of any functioning justice system, and they provide alternatives for those who might be drawn into crime. The antisocial behaviour that was on display at the weekend testifies to the fact that prevention of crime, and better outcomes for those who are at risk of involvement, must be a crucial part of addressing criminal behaviour in the first place.

There must be greater clarity on what metrics the Scottish Government is using to measure the success of the various activities that are being supported by the scheme. I note that those metrics are not set out in the latest evaluation report for 2020 to 2023, which was published on the cashback for communities website, and, as a result, I would welcome feedback from the minister on that point.

Other than assessments of positive destinations, it is not clear whether there is concrete evidence to conclude that those specific projects are reducing crime. I am also unclear as to how organisations are selected, so it would be helpful if the minister could say more on that, too.

Many of the organisations that are funded are national charities. However, I think that we will all know of schemes through which local groups in our constituencies receive valuable funding. One example is in North Ayrshire. As well as getting the benefits of having the national governing bodies for football and rugby, which have received hundreds of thousands of pounds between them, the area also has a number of local sports projects that receive support.

It would be good to know whether smaller, grass-roots organisations, such as council-run youth clubs, tend to bid for grants. The sums awarded to a relatively small number of large organisations clearly have benefit, but the fact is that almost all such projects are now delivered by the third sector. Of course, charities and not-for-profit organisations are not subject to freedom of information coverage, despite receiving public money, albeit that those funds are recovered from criminal activities rather than from taxation. Therefore, it is more important that the Scottish Government provides transparency, as it would not only be of public benefit but allow us to better guide projects and assess outcomes for the young people whom they support.

I also point out that the amount of funds that are recovered to support those projects in the first place is relatively small. I understand that £7 million was recovered in 2020-21, which was the last financial year to be measured, but the Scottish Government’s assessment in 2017 was that organised crime cost the Scottish economy £2 billion a year.

I would be very happy to write to the UK Government with Keith Brown. He clearly has a huge amount of experience to draw upon and I am sure that he is absolutely correct in what he is saying.

As Russell Findlay has said, one person from an organised crime group in Scotland reportedly made more than £126 million, yet only 0.1 per cent of that money was confiscated. I am clear that organised criminal gangs do not stop at borders. The more cross-border co-operation there is, the better, and I would welcome clarity on what steps are being taken and, indeed, what dialogue ministers are having with the UK Government as well as with Police Scotland and the Crown Office to ensure that more money is being recovered in cases for potential use in supporting community projects. I would also welcome the minister outlining the work that is being done to increase the moneys being recovered.

As I have said, Russell Findlay has made a powerful case for review. I make it clear to the minister that Scottish Labour supports the cashback for communities scheme, but I hope that she will address the issues and concerns that have been raised in the debate as well as respond to the reference in Labour’s amendment to restorative justice.

I move amendment S6M-11127.1, to insert at end:

“, and recognises the importance of access to restorative justice practices, not only as a measure to prevent antisocial behaviour, but also as a tool for young people who are already involved in the criminal justice system.”

The Parliament passed the recent fireworks legislation after a reduced scrutiny process, to enable it to be in place for bonfire night last year. Delay meant that councils were not able to designate control zones this year, and the proposed licensing scheme might create a black market. Labour supported the bill because of the new offences that it contained. Does the minister not accept, though, that the framework that was created by the legislation is making no difference to the problems that communities have experienced with fireworks, and that the 2022 act represents a wasted opportunity?

Will the minister take an intervention?