Social Justice Committee, 14 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 14, 2001

Official Report 326KB pdf

---

Voluntary Sector Inquiry

I welcome our guests to this meeting of the Social Justice Committee. The next item on our agenda is to continue to take evidence for our inquiry into the voluntary sector. I welcome representatives of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations: Lucy McTernan is assistant director, Isobel Lawson is a member of the management board and Philippa Bonella is policy officer. Martin Sime has been delayed and will join us as soon as he arrives.

After the witnesses have made some brief opening remarks, they will take questions from committee members.

The SCVO welcomes the committee's interest in hearing evidence from us. We believe that the voluntary sector has benefited from devolution and that it has made a big difference to the voluntary sector in Scotland. Three important issues that required attention were capacity building, the law and funding, and they have received that from the Parliament. We can report significant progress on all three issues, although further deliberation on some matters is still required.

We are now in dialogue with the Parliament about the voluntary sector's contribution to jobs, services and social capital. We are moving into a second phase of work, dealing with the social economy. We have high hopes of the social economy review and are looking forward to hearing the outcome of that towards the end of this year.

In its discussions with the Parliament, the SCVO wants to talk about the voluntary sector's contribution to a healthy Scotland, as manifested in community action, civic participation and, ultimately, better policy and governance. Underpinning that are our relationships with local government, with the social inclusion partnerships, with the Executive voluntary issues unit, with the new body Communities Scotland and with the Parliament.

Our relationship with the Parliament is underpinned by the implementation of the compact that has been agreed between the Parliament and the voluntary sector. We welcome this opportunity to give evidence to the committee and look forward to responding to members' questions.

I will start with some general questions. You referred to the positive contribution that devolution has made. Can you say in more detail how the work of the SCVO has changed over the past few years?

Our work has changed phenomenally. Before devolution I was a policy officer with the SCVO and spent most of my time travelling to London to persuade politicians down there that issues of interest to the Scottish voluntary sector were worthy of a small amount of parliamentary time. We spent eight years trying to get charity law on to the agenda of the Westminster Parliament, but it was on the agenda of the Scottish Parliament from the word go. That is one example of how our work has changed.

We now spend a lot of time talking to different parts of the Scottish Executive and to committees, including the Social Justice Committee. We feel that the voluntary sector is much more involved in the making and implementation of public policy. That is not to say that there is not still an enormous amount to do and that there are not problems in particular areas, but this is a completely different ball game from the one that we were in before.

Can you say something about the perception of the SCVO's ability to represent the interests of rural and urban organisations equally? Might that be a problem for the SCVO?

The SCVO has 1,300 member organisations, which include the largest and the national organisations. Through our systematic working relationship with local councils of voluntary service, we also represent organisations at a local level.

We believe that we have the interests of the full spread of the voluntary sector at heart. We have taken action to organise our staffing and work programmes to reflect the very different experiences of voluntary organisations in urban and rural settings. From our research we know that in rural areas of Scotland there are far more voluntary organisations per head of population than there are in urban areas. That is common sense, because such organisations are based in local communities, but it means that they are very different in size and operate very differently from organisations in urban settings. We have had to think carefully about that and to develop tailored programmes that allow us to respond to their different needs and to represent their interests to the Executive and the Parliament.

How do you see your role in relation to other umbrella groups in the sector? Do you think that there might be areas that seem to the outside world to contain duplication or where the differences do not make much sense?

There is always a dilemma when a number of interests are operating in one field. It is important to establish similarities and differences, to avoid duplication and to ensure proper investment of any funding.

In the voluntary sector, the SCVO's role is quite clear. Perhaps we need to do more work on promoting that outwith the voluntary sector. The SCVO covers the voluntary sector. Volunteer Development Scotland—VDS—is perceived to be similar to the SCVO and covers volunteering. There is a clear distinction in the voluntary sector: volunteering requires specific engagement and investment to support people's capacity to volunteer. The SCVO is about organisations that engage in other specific-interest fields—the social economy, for example—and support voluntary organisations. The councils for voluntary service network operates at a local level and a lot of funding has recently been invested in capacity building in it.

Those bodies exist to support the growth and development of local voluntary groups, community groups and voluntary organisations. They do not conflict with local volunteering agencies that exist to develop volunteering. There is a difference between developing the capacity of the voluntary sector—in the delivery of services, the creation of jobs or campaigning—and developing opportunities for people to engage in volunteering activities throughout a range of services.

There is therefore a difference within the voluntary sector. However, the important thing is that we are all working to promote volunteering and voluntary sector development in Scotland. All the agencies work hard at working together. There must be a distinction but there should be no conflict of interests. It is a challenge to ensure that all those who are involved in the volunteering side and all those in the voluntary sector development side work together for the benefit of the communities and people in Scotland that we support.

Sometimes I feel like apologising to people who are not actively involved in the voluntary sector, because it is quite complex. We use a lot of jargon and acronyms and it is often not easy to find your way around. That is for a very good reason: the voluntary sector is complex, which reflects a range of different people's activities in different communities. It would not make sense to take too corporate an approach to it. It works at the grass roots—from the community up rather than from the top down.

Having said that, and having visited the voluntary sector in other parts of the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the world, I feel that we have one of the best networked voluntary sectors in the world. We work together with other network and intermediary bodies. We have a key relationship with VDS and the local volunteering development agencies that Isobel Lawson mentioned. We have a key relationship with councils for voluntary services. However, we also work with network bodies representing communities of interest, such as YouthLink Scotland for the youth work groups and Scottish Environment LINK for the environment groups.

We are working to increase and improve that networking by investing in information technology and by communication through our newspaper and other means. It is therefore fair to say that we have a good working relationship with other networks in the voluntary sector. We will try harder to explain that better to people in the outside world.

Thank you for those answers. Before I ask my final question, I welcome Martin Sime who is the chief executive of the SCVO and who is now able to be with us. He has arrived just in time for my final question before we move to questions from other members of the committee.

What are the witnesses' views of the Scottish Executive's relationship with the voluntary sector? You have already said that there is a distinction between what exists now and what went on before devolution. In what ways do you want to see that relationship develop and perhaps change?

I start by offering my apologies to the committee—there was some confusion about the time. I had not picked up that we were required to be here earlier so it is entirely my fault.

It is fair to say that the SCVO sees relations with the Executive now and what happened before as like night and day. We now have much greater engagement with the Executive on a wide range of subjects. However, relationships between the Executive and different groups of interests in the voluntary sector could be deeper and stronger. That was one of the issues that we explored a bit at our recent 24-hour meeting with officials from the Executive. We would like those relationships not necessarily to conform to a single pattern but to be much more thoroughgoing in areas such as rural affairs and the environment, with some dialogue between community care organisations and the health department. There is a lot of scope for much more systematic dialogue with Executive ministers and officials. There is enthusiasm for that, at least in some parts of the Executive.

In section 1 of your submission, entitled "Growing our role", you point out that the Scottish Executive's review into the social economy is about to begin. I know from the information that you have provided that a member of staff will be seconded to the Executive for a period, but can you advise us what input the organisation will have into the review and what you hope to get from it?

The review of the social economy is being seen as an Executive initiative to try to establish a better understanding throughout the Executive of all the ways in which voluntary organisations currently contribute to public life and public services in Scotland. It is also seen as a means of exploring ways in which voluntary organisations can increase their contribution, in policy and service delivery terms, in many different areas. The SCVO was asked whether Stephen Maxwell could assist the Executive with that task. We are happy to do so. It is not seen as an externally driven initiative and Stephen has not sought wide contributions from the voluntary sector because, from our perspective, much of the agenda is well understood. He has mostly focused his attention on meeting officials throughout the Executive to explore the state of current relationships and the possibilities of extending them.

Obviously you would see that as something positive.

Absolutely. The SCVO has been keen to get progress in that area for about 18 months. It was at our annual general meeting last year that Jackie Baillie announced that there would be a review of the social economy, so we are pleased that it is happening now and that we are able to assist.

Judging by the first section of your submission you are obviously looking forward to a number of reviews. The performance and innovation unit's review into the legal and regulatory framework is on-going. What recommendations would you like to come out of that? What key areas need to be addressed?

The performance and innovation unit's review of voluntary sector regulation started off as more of a UK-wide review of not just charity law but beyond that to the wider sector. The unit came up a few weeks ago to consult organisations in Scotland. I think it became clear to all of us that it had become aware that much of the agenda had already been dealt with in Scotland through the McFadden commission. Since it is not considering tax issues for charities, few of the legal issues that charities are concerned with will be covered in a UK context.

In many ways, what we are looking forward to is the fact that the unit may have a faster track in Westminster because it is reporting directly to Tony Blair. It will give its recommendations to him in the next few months. We look forward to discovering what those recommendations are. We hope that they will fit fairly closely with what McFadden recommended, because we welcomed that very much, and that they will help to push forward the timetable for a change in Scotland, so that UK-wide change will happen over the next year or so.

In your submission, you also mention social investment Scotland, which was launched in September. I have experience of involvement with voluntary sector organisations that had been looking for private money for a number of years before the launch of that scheme. That is the positive side, but how have other voluntary organisations, which feel that going into the private money market is taking on a bit too much, received the initiative? What is the initial feedback from them?

The initial reaction to social investment Scotland has been interest, if not immediate enthusiasm, because loan funding is a new concept in the voluntary sector—except in housing associations and a few other types of organisation that have significant assets and have been able to justify to mainstream private banking the possibility that they would be a good investment.

In supporting the development of the social investment Scotland initiative, we were interested in opening up the market—as new demand for loans in the voluntary sector and, in the longer term, in the private banking industry. In that way, loan funding could serve as an additional weapon in the armoury of voluntary organisations. It might well serve to fill the gap between the grant and the donation income in particular initiatives, which could make the difference in getting a project off the ground. For example, a new building project for a community organisation might not happen if the organisation cannot take the risk up front.

That is not to say that loan funding is a replacement for other forms of funding. It is just a different type and a different source of funding that is becoming available to add to the general mix. Overall, the income to the voluntary sector is rising slightly, but the expenditure of the sector is rising a lot. The fact that the gap between income and expenditure is narrowing means that, increasingly, voluntary organisations must dip into assets. That is not a good, sustainable, long-term picture for the voluntary sector.

We must find ways of increasing all forms of income, from whatever source, and of reducing cost. That is why we continue to have a focus on the compliance and transaction costs that voluntary organisations must deal with—not least the removal of relief from water charges, which we have campaigned about lately.

I have one small addition to that. One of the inevitable consequences of pursuing a strategy of increasing access to loans is that voluntary organisations will have to negotiate more secure revenue funding to meet the guarantees that banking institutions might require. As well as fulfilling an important strategic role between the banks and voluntary organisations, social investment Scotland feeds in the experience of potential applicants and the difficulties that voluntary organisations face when seeking access to mainstream banking services. It is difficult to get a long-term loan to purchase a property for providing care for people coming out of long-stay institutions, for example, with only a three-year contract. Some downstream consideration of how to obtain more stable funding for voluntary organisations will arise from the initiative.

Thanks for coming along. Isobel Lawson said in her opening presentation that the Parliament has addressed some of the funding issues. As the inquiry goes on, however, it seems that funding remains a key issue for the voluntary sector.

In your written submission, you are critical of the voluntary issues unit consultation on Government funding for the sector. Will you say why you think the unit did not do things properly, how it could have done things better and whether you are in favour of its proposals for a pilot scheme or whether the Executive could address the sector's concerns on funding and sustainability in another way?

As Isobel Lawson said, we were pleased that the Executive started by looking at the three fundamentals for stabilising and consolidating the voluntary sector in Scotland—law, infrastructure and capacity, and funding. Initially, we had high hopes that the Executive would take a strategic view of the funding of the voluntary sector, its income and expenditure. We hoped that it would consider some of the broad-brush statistics that I mentioned earlier.

Our criticism of the Executive's review is that it changed from the strategic funding review that we had hoped for to an internalised review of systems for the funding that the Executive gives to the voluntary sector. That amounts to £39 million this year, but it is part of a total income to the sector of £2 billion. Executive funding is crucial and it can be important leverage for other sources of funding. The Executive can be a leader in demonstrating to funders ways in which they could do the job better, but the review and the consultation that followed did not address any of the strategic questions.

Having said that, we welcome the Executive pilot scheme for improving the way in which it funds. We hope that it will reflect good practice across the broader spread of funding for the voluntary sector. We want a return to strategic issues. We would be happy to offer the committee detailed information, from our research, on the size and shape of the sector. New statistics for 2000-01 update the information on income and expenditure and on the sources and types of funding that are available. I hope that that information will be of interest to you and, in turn, to the Executive when it considers further its strategic funding role.

Your welcome offer of information leads nicely to my next question. Is the SCVO undertaking any research on the future of the voluntary sector? Such information would be of interest.

The SCVO has had a research unit for six years now. Work to date has been on the basic statistics of the voluntary sector—how many groups there are, where they are, what they are doing, what resources they have, and what the benefits are. With a number of partners, we are in the process of agreeing a much broader research programme that will build on what we have done in the past but go much further to consider in detail the trends in the different subsectors. It will consider the health and social care fields and what influences them.

In particular, we will consider what organisations need to allow them to grow. We want qualitative information on the barriers to growth and how they can be removed. We will consider the support that can be given to organisations to help them make significant steps in their development. We will consider the work force needs, hoping to link that information into the development of the SCVO, with the Scottish Council of National Training Organisations, as a skills council for the voluntary sector. That will help us to identify long-term strategies to support people in paid employment and to support volunteers.

One of the most interesting pieces of research that we are about to embark on—in which we hope to have a number of partners in academia, government and elsewhere—is in developing ways of measuring social capital. That is the clearest way of measuring the added value that voluntary organisations bring to public life and services. The dynamism of bringing people together to deliver their own services can add to the value of those services and of the organisation. That is hard to define. It cannot be measured in pounds, shillings and pence, but we have to develop methodologies for measuring it simply and easily. That can lead on to best-value regimes in the letting of contracts.

If the Executive is about to embark on a strategy for making the social economy grow, we need to know our starting point so that we will know whether the strategy is being successful. One of the big problems in this area has been getting annual statistics on the size and shape of the sector, the number of volunteers, where they are volunteering and the amount of money that is donated by the pubic. That information would allow us to get a handle on the very basic statistics. I was in Canada recently and that is very much part of the architecture of what government there is trying to do. If we had those basic core-line statistics, we would be able to know, when we next launch our "Make a Difference" campaign, whether it does make a difference. At the moment, we do not know.

Representatives from CVS Scotland attended our last committee meeting and they told us that CVS Scotland is contemplating becoming a stand-alone organisation. Based on what Lucy McTernan said about ways in which to keep in touch with the grass roots, the committee would be interested to know your view of that proposal. Is it a good idea or do you have concerns about it?

Our starting point in such considerations, which surface from time to time, is that they are principally matters for CVS Scotland and for CVSs to determine. They need to weigh up carefully the benefits of being separated from the benefits of the current arrangements. They need to come to a view and it is not for the SCVO to determine whether the proposal is adopted.

The SCVO's perspective on the matter is that it is unlikely that we would welcome further separation of interests in the voluntary sector. Over the past couple of years, the SCVO has worked more closely with intermediary organisations. We have found common ground and have seen that there is a capacity to work together on a number of issues. That is the way to go. We need more collaboration and co-operation and less separation in the voluntary sector.

We are recovering from a long spell when we were put into a market and made to compete with each other. Changing that culture has taken some time. I would not like to see it disturbed again by the setting up of a number of parallel entities, which must inevitably argue their own discrete corners. It is possible to look at the voluntary sector infrastructure and its intermediary bodies and say that we all have complementary interests. On that basis, we should seek in future to work more closely together.

That fits in with most of the arguments for devolution and against independence. Thank you for that.

My apologies for my late arrival. I had difficulties on the M8. My question follows on nicely from what Karen Whitefield said.

In a recent debate, and when we were out on a field trip to Paisley last week, the question was raised whether, because there is so much statutory funding, the voluntary sector has any real independence, or must you look at your relationship with local government and follow its, rather than your own, agenda?

I very much hope that I am giving the committee the perspective of the voluntary sector and not one that is altered because I receive funding from anyone else, although I cannot prove that absolutely. However, voluntary organisations can choose whether to accept statutory funding. The statutory funding of the sector is only about 30 per cent of its total income, so many voluntary organisations exist without any government resources. Where voluntary organisations choose to work in partnership with government, that is fine. Where they choose to be independent, that is also fine.

The SCVO used to receive 56 per cent of its funding from the Scottish Executive as a core grant. That funding is now 3 per cent and I argue that our independence has increased as a result. When one enters a partnership, one does not deal in absolutes. One must listen to what one's partners are saying and reach accommodations with them. However, if voluntary organisations were not independent of government, we would not be doing our job. If we were ciphers of government in one form or another, it would not be possible for us to add value as we do.

One of the McFadden commission's key recommendations is that a line should be drawn between genuine voluntary activity on the one hand and Government and quangos on the other. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is keen on the recommendation that no governing body of a recognised charity in Scotland should draw more than a third of its nominees from the public sector.

I am interested in your answer. In Inverness, Karen Whitefield and I met a number of organisations that were concerned about that issue. Argyll CVS, for example, said that it produced a model of service delivery that it knew would work, but the local council came up with a different model, which the CVS believed would not work. In effect, the local CVS was told that it would not get funding unless it was willing to deliver service according to the local authority model. That issue concerns us. Statutory funding might be 30 per cent overall in the sector, but the percentage can be substantially higher for some organisations. Those who know how to deliver services might have real concerns about delivery, because the local authority, which might have a view, will not deliver the services on the ground.

Many voluntary organisations face that dilemma. Martin Sime said that voluntary organisations can choose whether to accept statutory funding. The voluntary sector's relationship with local government is substantially behind its relationship with the Scottish Parliament. A lot of work must be done to establish the voluntary sector as a partner in the delivery of services, and to deliver services locally to tackle poverty and social exclusion. There must be a route for bringing together a range of resources such as experience, knowledge and local people's capacity to determine what services will meet the needs of their communities. By resources, I do not simply mean hard cash. There is a long way to go to get the voluntary sector to work with local government to identify the best way to deliver services.

Parliament can give a lead to that partnership. The changing children's services fund, for example, is an opportunity for the voluntary sector to play a significant role in the design and delivery of services at local government level, but the sector must be part of the strategic planning process and not seen merely as a recipient of local government grant. The relationship and status of voluntary organisations needs to be addressed at local government level.

There might be a long way to go, but there are opportunities for us to address such issues. I am not too despondent. The voluntary sector can deliver quality services that meet best value, but there must be more discussion and open dialogue between the sector and local government. That is a problem for some organisations, but there can be development in that matter.

You and Martin Sime claim that accepting statutory funding is a matter of choice. However, if some organisations do not accept statutory funding, they will soon be extinct. We are concerned about that.

That is a critical issue and I share that perspective. Many voluntary organisations have been entirely dependent on a statutory funder and, in some circumstances, the relationship can best be described as voluntary sector servants to government masters. We work hard to try to change that; ultimately, voluntary organisations serve Scotland best by being independent.

On the same theme, one thing in your submission that jumped out and crystallised what many folk said in the inquiry relates to the partnership between local authorities and the voluntary sector. Is there real partnership between them? Isobel Lawson said that there is an urgent need to review that relationship. All the partners must be equal if we are to have a vibrant social economy and we must work together on that. We keep hearing about what the voluntary sector can do. Isobel Lawson said what she thought the voluntary sector could do, but what can be done to make local authorities wake up to the fact that they must be equal partners with the voluntary sector? Local authorities are not all the same and we have heard different stories from throughout the country, but it is terribly easy to generalise. Local authorities must do something—perhaps there should be a cultural shift or a complete change of mind. How can the SCVO inform that process on behalf of its membership? How can the Scottish Executive inform the process?

Huge questions lurk in the points that Linda Fabiani makes. There are things that the SCVO, voluntary organisations and local government can do. There are also much bigger questions about the role of local government. The position that local government officials are put in—in which they provide services and are asked to treat voluntary organisations' services in the same way—is difficult and often invidious. There is a long and honourable tradition of local government trying hard to do that and to listen to the policy perspectives and advocacy of many different voluntary organisations.

Part of the problem is the need for cultural shift. It would help to embrace a pluralistic concept of what is possible and right in communities. That would allow voluntary organisations that are independent and that have developed their own services to play a role in the relationships with communities, so that those relationships are not all about money. That cultural change will not happen overnight in some parts of Scotland; it will take some time.

One of the most compelling facts that has been brought to our attention and focused our minds on the matter is that, outside Glasgow, in some of the most deprived parts of Scotland, the number of voluntary organisations per head of population is at its lowest. In parts of Scotland that do not have the same deprivation indicators, there are many more voluntary organisations. That has caused us to ask many questions about why that is the case. Why is the voluntary sector less vibrant and engaged in those areas? At heart, it is because there are some difficult relationships with local government that have not been properly addressed and sorted out. Isobel Lawson is absolutely right to say that that is critical. It has been expressed as a major concern by the SCVO and inside the Executive. It is not easy in the current circumstances to find the right way in which to address the problem.

What role will the SCVO play in the national advisory forum that the Scottish Executive has set up to consider the implementation of the review of charity law?

We will be one of many partners in that forum. As I understand it, the Executive has decided to bring together in the forum to consider implementation all the organisations that are involved in the charity law review. The forum will include us, local authorities, the Scottish charities office and all the other players.

Do you believe that you have any specific role to play in that forum? Lucy McTernan seems to be desperate to say something.

It is absolutely clear that the SCVO's role as the umbrella body for the voluntary sector means that we have a crucial role to play in the development of the debate on charity law. We were delighted with the McFadden commission's recommendations. As Philippa Bonella said, we are enthusiastically hopeful that the attention that the matters are being given south of the border will move us a bit faster towards implementation in Scotland.

We understand that the forum, which was announced two or three weeks ago, will examine in some detail the recommendations of the McFadden commission, with a view to their implementation. We do not yet know fully what form that forum will take or what remit it will have. We anticipate that the SCVO, as the representative body for the voluntary sector, will have a critical role to play because we bring to the table the interests of the existing 27,000 charities and the other 44,000 that are part of the voluntary sector at large.

You say in your submission, and you have reaffirmed today, that you are delighted with the McFadden commission's recommendations. Are there any recommendations with which you are not happy? Are there any omissions?

You are right that we broadly support McFadden's recommendations, although a few of them caused concern. Probably our most important concern is about the idea that—like the Charity Commission for England and Wales—charityScotland, which will be the regulator and registrar of charities, should be the policeman and friend and adviser of charities. Evidence from England and Wales has shown that that is not working terribly well. Charities are not happy to seek advice from the same agency that monitors them. The Cabinet Office's performance and innovation unit seems to be considering splitting the two roles of the Charity Commission. Therefore the functions of the Charity Commission might change.

McFadden also recommended that charityScotland should have the role of gatekeeper of charities. That would mean that charityScotland would not register any new charities in an area in which it felt there were too many charities operating. That would not be a helpful role for a statutory regulator. It should be for organisations within the sector to choose how they want to operate. They should be able to choose to come together to sort things out so that they do not duplicate work.

Would such a role discourage new organisations from blossoming?

The SCVO holds to the principle that people have the right of free association. If people want to get together and do things their own way, who is to tell them that they should not?

To come back to your original question, one of the roles that the SCVO will play will be in keeping the process on track and ensuring that it happens. There are many vested interests out there that would be happy to blow away some parts of the agenda or kick them into the long grass. My colleague Lucy McTernan and I have been working on this agenda for eight years. It is not quite personal, but we want the matter to be nailed and to get some decent law on the statute book in Scotland. Charities as a whole would benefit from that, as would the public. Our role is to ensure that that happens.

Are you referring to specific vested interests?

There has been a lot of public comment about whether the charitable status of several kinds of organisations—such as churches, private schools and other bodies—would remain. It is not for us to comment on that, but to establish a benchmark of public benefit, as set out by McFadden. That is the task of the working group. Individual organisations must make their cases for whether they can meet that benchmark after the law has been passed.

My understanding is that one of the recommendations from the report is that co-operatives, for example, would be excluded from being defined as charities. That might be an area of contention. Do you have a view on that recommendation, given the nature of the voluntary sector?

It would be unfortunate if that was a blanket proposition, which I think is unlikely. Clearly, a line must be drawn between what is of mutual, collective, community and public benefit and what is of individual benefit. That is difficult to do and it is part of the task of the working group to sort that out. We would be pleased if large swathes of co-operative organisations were able to join the mainstream voluntary sector and enjoy the benefits of public benefit status.

Do you have formal links with co-operative organisations or umbrella organisations, such as the Scottish Co-operative and Mutual Forum?

We link with co-operatives of different types. For instance, we have good relationships with the Scottish League of Credit Unions and ABCUL Scotland—the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd in Scotland. We work with them in making links between the credit union movement's co-operative structure and other forms of voluntary organisation, with a view to their mutual benefit through growing the credit union movement and the other forms of activity. We have not formalised relationships with the co-operative movement's forum, but we would be willing to do so because that is an area of great interest to both organisations.

Thank you very much. That was useful. We will be happy to receive correspondence on any points that you wish to develop, or further evidence that you want to present to us in written form. Thank you for attending.