Official Report 186KB pdf
We will move to item 4—I mean item 7; I always just read what is in front of me, which can make for interesting reading in the Official Report. In any case, the official reporters appear to be paying no attention whatever.
It is nice to be back at the Social Justice Committee. I apologise for the fact that Iain Gray is not here this morning; he very much wanted to come. Anyone who knows him knows of his strong interest in and commitment to working with committees in the Parliament and his strong interest in the voluntary sector, about which he wanted to talk to the committee. Unfortunately, today is the cities review day in Glasgow—it was postponed previously—so Iain asked me to come to the committee. We consulted the clerk to ensure that that was in the committee's interest. I just wish to put on record the fact that Iain Gray very much wants to come to the Social Justice Committee at a future date and would welcome discussion with committee members. The fact that he is not here today is not an indication that he does not value the committee; a clash of diary dates prevented him from attending.
You are fine, minister.
Stephen Maxwell from the SCVO is carrying out that review and will report to the minister later this month. The review will look at the contribution of the social economy to service provision and economic prosperity. It will also consider the actions that the Executive needs to take to increase that contribution.
We move on to questions. I will kick off. Changes have been made recently to the ministerial team that is responsible for social justice and the voluntary sector. Do you believe that, consequently, there may be changes in policy direction in relation to the voluntary sector? Will there be a review of what has been done so far, so that you can reflect on whether changes should be made?
The early indications are that no changes will be made, as we are in the midst of beginning work on a number of issues, such as the investment that we have put into the sector's infrastructure and the review of the social economy. My view is that it would be appropriate for us to bed down that work, rather than change direction. Iain Gray has just taken up his post and he will take some time to consider his brief in detail. We have had considerable success in our work with the voluntary sector and we will take on board the First Minister's statement that there should be fewer initiatives and more delivery. Our work with the voluntary sector is in the delivery phase. Both the Parliament and the Executive have made a clear commitment to the voluntary sector and we are on target with a lot of our work.
Do any of the Executive's policies on the voluntary sector need further development? Alternatively, if we do better when we do less, are there policies that should go? You spoke about volunteering. Volunteers come from different backgrounds. Are they more likely to come from more affluent areas? If so, has work been done to target other communities where there may be fewer volunteers?
Since I have been a minister, we have tried to keep our work with the voluntary sector strategic and focused. Infrastructure funding may not always grab the headlines—it is not the most populist of measures—but it is undoubtedly required. Everyone in the sector would agree that it must be prioritised properly. We will continue to do that because we expect to see results.
Are moneys in the active communities budget targeted on that?
Yes.
Is the Scottish Executive development department accountable for it?
Yes. I will let Sheenagh Adams give members some details; she may know the statistics better than I do.
Most of our information on levels of volunteering in different communities comes from the Scottish household survey. Later this month, we will publish a more detailed analysis than has been available. The highest levels of volunteering are in rural communities rather than in the large cities. Smaller towns come in between. People who are self-employed are most likely to volunteer: 35 per cent of self-employed people volunteer as opposed to 27 per cent generally and 16 or 17 per cent of unemployed people.
The SCVO was clear in its evidence that, since devolution, engagement with Government had vastly improved. However, it still believed that some groups felt a bit marginalised—environmental voluntary groups in particular. Now that the groundwork on the voluntary sector seems to have been done, do you have plans to engage more fully with groups that feel marginalised?
The SCVO has said that to us. I am pleased that it recognises that progress has been made, but we agree that more work must be done. Part of the thinking behind the away day in October that I mentioned was to have more of the Executive signed up. The presence of senior civil servants at the away day was welcome. Several detailed discussions were held between key voluntary organisations and those civil servants. Three ministers were present, which was also progress. That was a step in the right direction.
Perhaps the social economy review will pull some of that together.
Yes. We are a bit further down the road on that than we may be on other issues.
Many groups have said that they feel that their relationships with the Executive are better than their relationships with local government. Has a shift towards direct funding been considered? Voluntary groups would probably consider that ideal. In the absence of that, has the Executive thought about ways of assisting local relationships between local government and voluntary organisations?
As you know, that is a huge issue, which crops up in our work a lot. You will understand that huge tensions and sensitivities are involved. We do not expect the Executive to substitute for local government. It would be inappropriate for us to take over local government's role. As you will know from our many debates on local government, we believe that we need to give local government its proper place in designing local services; local government must have authority in designing strategies that meet their areas' needs. It would be inappropriate for the Scottish Executive to intervene in that and we do not see ourselves doing so.
COSLA has a voluntary sector forum that brings together the relevant people from local authorities. We attend that, as do the SCVO and Volunteer Development Scotland. As Margaret Curran said, we and other interested parties will meet Corrie McChord. We will consider local compacts through the compact review group, which involves the Scottish Executive and the voluntary sector working jointly. We will invite local government's view.
I presume that the Executive has a process by which it speaks to local authorities that are not members of COSLA.
Our main emphasis is on dealing with COSLA, although we meet organisations that we fund and that are in areas where the local authority is not a member of COSLA. We have not had meetings with local authorities that are not in COSLA.
Will you do something about that shortly, given that Glasgow City Council, which is the largest local authority, is not in COSLA?
I am in regular dialogue with Glasgow City Council about many matters; adding the voluntary sector would not create issues. We must consider that.
The SCVO criticised the voluntary issues unit's recent consultation on Government funding for the sector because of its limited scope and failure to consider strategic issues. How will the Executive tackle those concerns?
We are not trying to run away from a consultation on strategic issues—we intend to have one. One of the issues is how the consultation is done. Again, Sheenagh Adams deals with the substance of that and can give you the details. Essentially, we are considering the funding in two key parts. First, we have gone on to a three-year cycle, which gives local authorities the opportunity to develop a more substantial relationship with the voluntary sector. Longer-term funding allows us to get away from projectitis; that is one of our key aims.
The minister has covered the issues well.
Hooray.
Give that girl a coconut.
As the minister said, the review is process driven. The SCVO is involved and a senior member of its staff is in the group that implements the review. We hope to make good progress on that. Next year, we will pilot a new approach to applications and offers, which will apply throughout the Executive by 2003-04. It is important that we get the processes right. A big criticism of the sector is the cost for organisations of applying for and dealing with funding. We want to streamline systems throughout the Executive. If we cannot become exemplars of good practice, we should not take a view on how other funders deliver the goods to the sector.
Last Friday, Robert Brown and I attended a meeting of Communities Against Poverty at which a couple of related issues were raised. First, disadvantaged groups that are non-geographically defined, such as the elderly and disabled, can lose out on geographically based initiatives such as social inclusion partnerships. Secondly, gentrification can impact on an area's eligibility for funding, which can adversely affect disadvantaged people in that area. For example, it was mentioned at the meeting that the west end of Glasgow is moving deeper into Maryhill. How flexible is the system in addressing those issues?
I am not sure how flexible the system is. Perhaps it is not flexible enough. However, I would defend the geographic approach, despite its limits, some of which we have addressed. In essence, the targeting of SIPs is about targeting excluded areas—it is part of a strategy of tackling poverty. We know about area-based concentration of poverty, which cannot be ducked. I am not saying that certain thematic groups should not be able to apply for funding. There are elderly people in Maryhill and Easterhouse, for example, which are covered by SIPs. Those people should be able to apply for funding.
I want to clarify something on gentrification. New housing may be built in a SIP area and people will therefore move into that area. If there is a reassessment and the area does not qualify as a SIP area, the people who originally lived in the community may lose out on support from the Executive. In naked statistical terms, the area has improved, but the quality of life and standard of living of the original community may not have improved.
I take your point. We give great consideration to such matters and consider the statistics that are returned to us to designate boundaries and target resources. There is a constant discussion. There must be a balance. Boundaries cannot be changed constantly as, if they were, funding packages would be changed annually, which would not make sense. However, we are sensitive to the issue.
It has been said that, as far as we can judge, there is broad satisfaction with central Government. However, most voluntary organisations, as opposed to umbrella groups, receive their funding from local government. Although there has been a real-terms increase in local authority funding in the three-year funding cycle, there is scant evidence that that is being followed up with three-year agreements and cost of living increases for local government-funded voluntary groups. What drivers does the Scottish Executive have to bring such things about? The issue is crucial if proper changes in existing core funding are to be made.
From talking informally to members, I am aware of the committee's evidence and criticisms that have been made. I refer to my earlier answer. We understand the frustrations out there. We hear and understand the evidence. A much better working relationship between local authorities and the voluntary sector must be created. I also hear representations from local authorities that think that they are hard done by and that the voluntary sector does very well. Local authority workers have suffered considerably over the past 18 years. I am not trying to get too awkward about this, Lyndsay McIntosh.
Careful.
It is only now that the effect of the increased funding in the local authority sector and policies that support local authority services is beginning to be felt. We are trying to change the culture of neglect—that should lead to a more constructive dialogue about issues such as service delivery.
I accept that entirely and it is an important point. Nevertheless, the reality is that that is not happening to anything like the extent that it should. Is that partly because local authorities are not providing strategic drivers? An awful lot of the projects require innovation and new projects are reinventing the wheel. The term of funding is often limited and the sources of funding, for example health boards, the lottery and so on, are often outwith local authority control. Could anything be done to put more substantial core funding into the pot—however you define it—and provide less funding for new projects that just replace existing ones? Could we have greater control over the lottery, for example, to allow us to do something in that context?
There is a lot in that. We will consider those issues when we move on to the next phase of the strategic review of funding. I am having preliminary discussions with some people about several possibilities; we are not yet at the stage of deciding on policy. I am responsible for some SIPs' work and am examining the agendas that they are producing. They want to get away from projectitis: you can fund so many projects that you lose control of the many projects that exist. A more strategic view is necessary. We are encouraging SIPs to be more strategic. We want to encourage sustainability in funding, so that people think in terms of three years, not one.
The voluntary sector is involved in the community planning task force. The SCVO and Volunteer Development Scotland are involved in the main body and in the sub groups. The guidance that will be made available to local authorities on community planning will place strong emphasis on the need to engage the voluntary sector. One of the key priority tasks that has been given to councils for voluntary service throughout Scotland is to engage in the community planning process and to help the voluntary sector in each local authority area to engage in the processes so that it can work with the local authorities, health boards, LECs and so on in their area to address issues. The picture is mixed across Scotland. We cannot take a uniform approach, because circumstances are different and the shape of the voluntary sector may be different in each local authority area.
Is there a lack of recognition that the voluntary sector has a legitimacy equal to that of local government and central Government? Could a mechanism be used to encourage that recognition? A mechanism exists by which Citizens Advice Scotland gets money from the Department of Trade and Industry to lever in funding for partnership and development, against the background of matters such as training in management, which has been shown to be an under-resourced element. Is there potential for a central funding mechanism like that, which would oil the wheels and encourage the process in a certain direction, while leaving local authorities with the principal role in strategy and funding?
I do not know—I would not rule anything out as a possible way forward to tackle those issues. I do not think that anybody would rule anything out. In the context of my earlier comments, that would obviously be a matter for consideration.
You have already spoken about the need to promote volunteering and encourage more people to volunteer, which is welcome. However, one of the consequences of the active communities initiative is that not only do we need to encourage people to volunteer, we need to sustain, maintain and manage them too. Often when organisations put together funding applications, no consideration is given to the cost of managing those volunteers. We have taken evidence on that from VDS and from other organisations as we have gone around the country. Does the Scottish Executive share that view? Do you realise and accept that the problem exists? How will you address it?
Yes, we view that issue as serious—it has been raised with us too. We are working towards producing best-practice guidance on that. People think that volunteering is a cheap option, but it is not. Volunteering involves a completely different approach from simply trying to get things on the cheap. We recognise that there are management issues.
It is the Scottish Association of Volunteer Managers.
We should get the Executive to produce a glossary of all the organisations, groups and working groups.
Then I could learn them off by heart. I apologise for not knowing the name of that organisation, but I knew that it existed—which for me is progress. Strike that from the record, please. [Laughter.]
We have a meeting with the association next week.
I take seriously the point that Karen Whitefield makes. From experience of volunteer projects, I understand what can go seriously wrong if management structures are not in place. Management may not be the most popular thing to fund, as people always want to fund core delivery, but we recognise that core delivery will not be right unless the management is also right. We are examining that issue and we will provide the committee with information on it.
From next year, the Executive will double the funding to the national network of local volunteer development agencies, which will get an extra £1 million under the active communities initiative. We know that some of those agencies are considering using some of that money to fund best practice because they recognise that, where things such as travel and subsistence costs need to be met, people must not be excluded because, for example, they cannot afford to pay their bus fare.
The sector is becoming increasingly professional. Volunteers are not ladies who lunch filling their time but individuals meeting a real need in their communities.
I was trying to discuss answers with my officials as you were speaking. It is hard to get the balance right. People who want to participate in their community and cannot understand why they are faced with such rules and regulations need support. It is important that people who give their time are assisted to understand why there are so many regulations.
You spoke earlier about the Executive's wish to get the infrastructure of the voluntary sector right. I am sure that the committee agrees that that is important. During the inquiry, the committee has taken evidence from some organisations that feel that there is confusion about the roles of the different national infrastructure bodies. Do you think that the roles of the various Scotland-wide organisations are clear enough? Are you convinced that the current infrastructure is effective enough in meeting their requirements?
We do not want confusion to exist. We must examine the roles of the national infrastructure organisations, because we need to make them clear. We are at the beginning of the process. We are just getting to the stage at which we are funding the national networks in every local authority area. Perhaps, once the situation beds down, there will be greater clarity.
That is right. We fund the two national networks—CVS Scotland, which is geared up to providing a service to the wider voluntary sector—whether that be national organisations that operate locally or small, local organisations—and the local volunteering development agencies. We are aware that those names can create confusion—one can look at the name of a voluntary organisation and wonder whether it is a CVS or an LVDA. The LVDAs are behind the CVSs in having a brand identity. We have been helping them to develop a national identity as the volunteer bureaux—or whatever name it is that they decide to go with—across Scotland. That will clarify the situation and make it easier for the LVDAs to advertise and so forth.
I assume that that situation is on-going and that you want to highlight areas of duplication or confusion. Should the Executive or the sector publicise that role?
It is for both the Executive and the sector to do that. In arriving at our support for the voluntary sector, we try to facilitate and encourage clarity from and access to the existing support networks. The sector has a responsibility to do that. We are in a new phase of support where we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. People can say to us, "We want this sort of network and this is how it needs to be developed."
I want to move on to some of the constructive criticisms that we have heard during the visits that we have made as part of our investigation. I met voluntary sector groups that welcomed the Executive affording them an involvement in consultation documents. They welcomed the opportunity to help shape the Executive's policies.
That is a big issue. Again, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. We want to consult, but we realise that some organisations, particularly smaller ones, can find producing responses a difficult challenge.
There is already a good practice guide for consultation of the voluntary sector. Centrally, the Scottish Executive is developing good practice on consulting in general. We are keen to involve people in designing good practice; we are keen on consulting on good practice. I think that we are being a bit more innovative. It is not just about sending out a document and waiting three weeks for the reply. We have already given a commitment to give people three months to respond. We gave more than four months for the black and ethnic minority consultation.
From what I have picked up from voluntary organisations, it seems that, if there is good practice, it is not really working. Organisations feel that tokenism is involved—that is a persistent criticism. It is about not just the time that is allowed for the consultation process, but the resource that is put into it. The reason why women's organisations, in particular, cannot respond as much as they ought to is because they work in so many areas and are so focused on service delivery at the hardest edge.
That is an interesting point, which we would want to take on board. Members may be aware that a lot of criticism about that was expressed by women's organisations through the women in Scotland consultative forum. We have examined the issue thoroughly and are doing so again locally. I am not saying that we have got there and have devised the perfect consultation process, but the issue is on our agenda. I note the point about feedback not being given to organisations and will look to feed that into our work.
I have a small point on consultation. The first group I met as part of the exercise was based in Aberdeen. The group was pleased to see Robert Brown and me and was grateful that we had taken the time to come and listen before forming our opinions. The group recognised the difference in the Scottish Executive's approach since the Scottish Parliament was set up. It suggested that the ministerial team that deals with the voluntary sector should visit different areas regularly. We made visits to the eight parliamentary regions, which was fairly successful. One could divide the country into smaller units. Perhaps the Executive could go out regularly to speak to groups in the regions, who could bring their ideas to the table. It was a good suggestion.
It is important that the mountain goes to Mohammed and is seen to do so. I agree with almost everything that has been said on that. It is about not just consultation, but participation.
I take that point very seriously. It is clear that the committee feels strongly about it and I will raise it with Iain Gray. We will not solve the problem easily; I would not like to say that we would. It needs to be considered across the Executive—we consult on everything, as the committee knows. Cathie Craigie's suggestion that we go out to people and be prepared to discuss issues is helpful. That moves issues forward and we will build it into our approach.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation