Chamber and committees

I do not think that that is accurate. Just for completeness of the record, there was one amendment that was accepted by the Government and I understood that that was because of the experience of custody courts going on until 10 o’clock at night—in Glasgow anyway—at huge cost to the public purse, because the quality of the connection was so bad. I saw for myself the mistakes that were being made and, for that reason, I thought that at least there was a ban on virtual appearances at custody courts. Anyway, I would be grateful if I could get some clarification on that. For that reason, I have to raise my concerns about the continuation of virtual appearances.

Thank you very much.

I want to ask about recent press reports about Barlinnie prison in Glasgow. I think that you have already alluded to issues with the construction industry. Could you elaborate on that? Has the timetable changed again and what are the actual reasons that you are being given for the delay? I understand that the cost of raw materials is going up, but that is the case across the sector. Given that we are building one prison here, and that it is a priority, I am having difficulty in understanding what seem to be repeated delays in bringing it about.

Do you agree that there is an urgent need to replace Barlinnie?

l am only asking the panel what I already asked them. Can you give us a rough indication of the year?

We have been told that it is expected that the design will be complete in April next year, but we currently have no idea whatsoever about how the prison will be built. I understand that it is a big infrastructure project. Will you press the relevant people to provide an estimate of when the project can start? Am I right in thinking that, if you have a design plan at that point, you can cost it?

You will see them in April.

I take it from what you are saying to the committee that the new prison is a priority, you will see the design plans in April and then you will start to release the relevant capital to get work started. Is that fair?

I understand that you cannot answer that question. I suppose that I would like to think that the Government is pressing the Crown for an answer. You are coming to the committee asking us to endorse the extension, but I do not think there is any justification for the Crown asking for it. I am less sympathetic to the extension to that time limit.

Can I ask you about the letter, which I have only just seen? I understand that you are consulting on making permanent measures that would include electronic signing of documents, virtual attendance at criminal courts and national jurisdiction for callings from custody—there is a list of things that you are asking to be made permanent. We will not be able to cover this today, but can I highlight a few areas of concern? Have you discussed national jurisdiction with the legal profession, for example? That must have huge implications for where people are tried and where the lawyers have to be.

I welcome this debate. It is some time since the Parliament discussed the cashback for communities programme.

It is important to start off with Russell Findlay’s amendment, because the source of the cashback is money that is recouped from criminals. We are doing something useful with that for communities.

An observation that I will make is that we used to get an almost annual report from the former Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, but it has been some time since we had such a report. Those reports used to talk about what the SCDEA had captured, but since it was amalgamated into the Gartcosh campus, the visibility of that capture has almost disappeared. I make a plea to ministers that we should ask Police Scotland to think about producing those reports again. I have no idea how successful Police Scotland has been in that regard—it was much clearer five or six years ago.

I agree with all members that the cashback for communities programme is a brilliant concept. It was introduced by a Labour Government, as Carol Mochan pointed out, and has been continued by the current Scottish Government, and it is unique to Scotland. We should all be proud of returning money gained through criminal activity back to communities through targeted investment for the purpose of preventing antisocial behaviour. Doing so supports wellbeing, builds confidence and skills for young people and helps with restorative justice programmes, which we all agree have been beneficial to communities. Marie McNair addressed how important those can be.

I agree with Claire Baker that perhaps it is time to refocus on where the money is going and to evaluate that. Some of the figures that I will quote, as others have done, sound like a lot of investment, but I am not really sure what the work is achieving overall. I know that it is achieving a lot, but it is really important to get some evaluation of that.

We know that the programme has provided 2.5 million activities for people since its inception and that 75 per cent of young people involved in those are from the most deprived communities. In my Glasgow region, there have been more than a quarter of a million activities since 2008 and, in 2022 to 2023 alone, £1.5 million has been provided for 4,500 activities. The programme brings invaluable opportunities and part of its aim is to bring benefits to children and young people, their families and communities. However, although the programme’s positive impact is undeniable, it should be evaluated.

With phase 6 of the programme under way—it will continue to March 2026—we must ensure that the greatest amount of revenue from criminal activity that is seized is reinvested. The minister said in her opening statement that we will not see the details of phase 5 until the end of the year. I wonder whether we should have had this debate after we had had the chance to see that information. Perhaps there can be a focus on that when it is available.

We need a justice system that ensures the prevention of crime and better outcomes for those at risk of involvement and that addresses criminal behaviour. With that in mind, I stress the need for making sure that some of the money goes into youth offending services.

The Dick Stewart service, which works across Scotland, has had its funding threatened recently. Even though it has a tremendous record of supporting young male offenders leaving prison and has received top marks from the Care Inspectorate, we might see its closure. That is one example of where investment might need to be broadened to ensure that we do not lose existing services.

The Venture Trust, which is a new grant recipient for phase 6, is a prime example of the work in which we should be investing. Last year, 47 per cent of the trust’s 688 participants were involved in the Scottish justice system. Its living wild programme supports men and women on community payback, while its inspiring young futures programme supports young people struggling with unemployment who are involved in antisocial behaviour among other offences.

Through activities that aim to build aspiration and self-confidence, develop employability skills and improve health and wellbeing, a quarter of the participants have reported at least one positive outcome in their life. Whether the outcome is an educational achievement, getting voluntary or work experience, referral to another service, or even something more personal such as gaining access to their own children, our ultimate aim is to reduce their risk of antisocial and criminal behaviour. For young women, in particular, strong relationships, self-confidence and financial security are all key to avoiding taking part in antisocial and criminal behaviour.

Also receiving funds this year is Strengthening Communities for Race Equality Scotland, which works with ethnic minority young people aged from 11 to 24. A significant number of its activities centre on reducing antisocial and criminal behaviour. One activity has seen around 450 young people working with Police Scotland to establish trust between communities and law enforcement.

In my concluding 30 seconds, I highlight that, when Roz McCall was speaking earlier, it struck me that a review of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2020 might be in order. Some of the quoted figures lead to questions. I understand that what cannot be proved is a matter of evidence, but we should not be complacent about such an important piece of legislation. We must ensure that prosecutors have the necessary tools in law to get the maximum amount from people who break the law and to ensure that the return on it relates to the amount of money that was stolen in the first place.

To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made towards reaching a resolution to the on-going dispute with the Fire Brigades Union. (S6O-02672)