Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations
We are very pleased this morning to welcome representatives of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. We will hear a short presentation and then move on to a discussion—I hope that the meeting will be as interactive as possible. The Parliament had a full debate on the voluntary sector last week and SCVO will have no complaints about the support that it received and the positive statements that were made. We are thankful for the material that SCVO has sent to us—the information is full and impressive, but I am sure that members will pick up on some of the points in it. I now hand over to SCVO.
Martin Sime (Director, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations):
We are very pleased to be able to participate in this meeting. I will introduce our team. I am Martin Sime, the director of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. On my right are Connie Smith, our policy and research officer, and Stephen Maxwell, our assistant director. We are pleased to have been invited here today—it is an honour to sit in this chamber. I hope that the meeting can be as interactive as possible in the circumstances.
Our primary purpose in being here is to provide an orientation guide to the voluntary sector. Our experience is that most people recognise only the part of the voluntary sector with which they are familiar, but SCVO seeks to represent directly and indirectly the interests of voluntary organisations working in many different fields of activity.
The debate in Parliament last week reflected the huge interest in and cross-party support for the voluntary sector in Scotland. It is SCVO's belief that we need to build on that good will and to develop the sector's contribution to Scottish public life.
In our memorandum, we have offered the committee a rough guide. It contains evidence about the size and shape of the sector and about current issues and areas of interest. As the committee will see, the sector works in all areas of public policy. It would be invidious of us to highlight one area at the expense of others—diversity and pluralism are the sector's strengths, but they are also sometimes its weakness. There are many different voices and points of view on priorities and needs. It is in that context that we offer the following general themes for consideration, which might form the basis of our discussion.
As a starting point, I should say that SCVO congratulates the Scottish Executive on its work in addressing some of the issues of structure and domestic matters relating to its relationship with the voluntary sector. We have been seeking progress on some of those issues for decades and they have at last been addressed—and addressed well.
We now have the right structures for the establishment of a good relationship and good dialogue with the Government in Scotland. The next phase is to use those structures to make a difference on the ground—that is an objective that we all share.
One of the committee's roles is to scrutinise the Executive's actions in the voluntary sector and to ensure that the practice matches the rhetoric. The Executive says that the sector is a good thing and should be encouraged—a continuing review is needed of whether the practice matches the good intentions.
Joined-up thinking is another issue. We want to look at cross-cutting agendas and at what falls between the cracks of departmental interests. This committee has a wide range of responsibilities. Social inclusion and housing are huge agendas and the committee could spend all its time on those. Our being invited here is evidence that the committee will not forget the voluntary sector and its interests and that the committee is not focused only on social inclusion and housing, although those are important areas of activity.
Another suggestion is for the committee to focus, in the longer term, on ways in which the third sector adds value—the reasons why it is different from the public and private sectors—including, for example, the role of donations or volunteer leadership. We want to ensure that as much as possible is being done to bolster and support ways in which the sector adds value to public services.
As was said in the debate last week, there is a need to safeguard the independence of voluntary organisations—we must ensure that voluntary organisations have a reserved space in which to contribute to public policy debate. In many areas in which the sector is working, non-departmental public bodies and Government agencies seem to spend an enormous amount of time talking to each other. We must ensure that there is room for the voluntary sector, with its independent, outside perspective, to contribute to those debates.
Beyond this general list, organisations will want to present the committee with competing priorities. One of your dilemmas is how to deal with that. As I said earlier, I have been struck—particularly in last week's debate—by the depth of positive feeling for the voluntary sector.
We need an outline of the Executive's intentions to translate the support for the voluntary sector into a real strategy for helping the sector and for helping us to develop our work. How will we know whether such a strategy will work? Do we have any benchmarks? It may be decided to listen to what people feel should be the benchmarks against which the Executive's programme of action is to be measured.
I now bring Stephen into the discussion. He has five specific areas that the committee might want to address.
Stephen Maxwell (Assistant Director, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations):
We were asked whether, in today's meeting, we could suggest some areas of interest in the voluntary sector that the committee might want to consider in the medium term rather than the long term. We would like to suggest five areas in which the voluntary sector would appreciate the committee's interest.
The first is charity law review and reform. In the elections, the majority party in the Scottish Parliament made a commitment to review and reform charity law. Anything that this committee could do to keep the Executive's attention firmly focused on that commitment, and the urgency with which it must be delivered, would be much appreciated by the voluntary sector. We are obviously interested in the timing and process of that review, and we are keen that it should be opened out for as much participation as possible by the wider voluntary sector and the public.
The second area is the implementation and monitoring of the Scottish compact—the agreement between the voluntary sector and the Scottish Office that has been carried forward by the Scottish Executive. From next April, the Scottish Executive departments, the non-departmental public bodies and Government agencies in Scotland will pursue implementation plans for the compact, which has a wide-ranging remit. The voluntary sector would appreciate anything that the committee can do to ensure that the broad principles of the compact are applied in practice, particularly in relation to the non-departmental public bodies and agencies.
A practical concern that will arise in the shorter term is the financial impact on the voluntary sector of police checks that have been imposed following the events in Dunblane. If the full weight of police checks is imposed on the voluntary organisations involved with the relevant vulnerable groups, there will be an estimated £3 million cost to the voluntary sector, which is very sensitive to cost. Under the current proposals, the cost would fall heavily on a number of voluntary organisations that have wide-ranging activities with vulnerable groups.
The fourth area to which the committee might want to turn its attention is the Scottish Parliament's relationship with the lottery and, in particular, with the new opportunities fund, which disposes of considerable sums of money in Scotland. The First Minister made a commitment to issue an order under the Scotland Act 1998 to give the Scottish Parliament powers of policy direction for distribution bodies in Scotland. The committee might wish to pursue the question of that order and take a close interest in how it is used when implemented.
Finally, I would like to suggest an initiative for this committee: an inquiry, perhaps jointly with the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and the Rural Affairs Committee, into how the economic role of the voluntary sector can be promoted. The briefing paper gives some figures about the scale of the voluntary sector's activity, from a base of 40,000 organisations that employ 100,000 people and that are active in many areas. The sector is now one of the fastest growing, in terms of job creation, in Europe's post-industrial economy. It is a matter of great interest and concern to the voluntary sector that its potential to contribute to economic development should be fully realised. There may be scope for an imaginative piece of joined-up inquiry and policy making by those three committees.
Connie, would you like to comment?
Connie Smith (Senior Policy and Research Officer, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations):
Not at this point.
Thank you very much indeed—that was extremely interesting and helpful. We will consider your comments, although I find it hard to have this discussion when members are sitting behind me—it makes me nervous. I ask members to put general questions before we come back to specific points. We have quite a lot of information and I assume that, after last week's debate, members are relatively well informed.
I have general questions, but one arises from your comments, Stephen. On the proposed reforms to charity law, where do you think that the priorities will lie? How urgent is the reform? Are some points of a higher priority than others?
You did not mention European structural funds, which are undergoing fairly radical change, but many voluntary organisations depend on them. The emphasis is now on capacity building in local communities and it is difficult for voluntary organisations and community-based organisations to access those funds unless they have the proactive support of local authorities and, indeed, matched funding from local authorities or similar organisations. Would you like to comment on the way forward, as you see it, for structural funds—how their limitations could be relaxed and how they could be used more effectively at community level?
I will comment on charity law and pass the question on European structural funds to Martin.
For many years, the sector has pursued the case for reform of charity law and regulation in Scotland on two or three grounds, one of which is that the regulation in Scotland is looser in some important aspects than it is south of the border. That gives rise to the cases that are reported in the media every so often of rogue charities from south of the border coming to the wild lands of Scotland to pursue activities that they cannot get away with in England. It is in the interests of the credibility of the sector in Scotland that the loopholes are closed.
We are also interested in reform in order to ensure that the charities in Scotland have the full range of professional and expert advice on how they should operate under the law, as we have not been confident that that has been available in Scotland in the past. There is a case for providing some methods of relatively cheap appeal against the award or withholding of tax privilege status—charitable status—to organisations, which, at the moment, can be pursued only through fairly expensive legal processes. We think that there is a case for exploring the possibility of introducing a cheap appeal against those decisions—a quick and easy appeal rather than the current complicated process. Behind that, there are wider issues about what sort of activities should merit tax privilege status.
Those are just some of the issues that are in the minds of those in the voluntary sector. They are not so urgent that they should foreclose the option of a proper public debate and review, and we want a debate on some of the issues before the Executive comes to a conclusion about what form the review should take. However, those issues are certainly at the top of the voluntary sector's agenda.
Alex Neil is right in saying that there are real difficulties with the European structural funds. Assisting local groups to gain access to those funds can be a very bureaucratic process. Each time the funds are reformed—and they are being reformed at the moment—we are promised simpler processes, but in practice an extra layer is added and the system becomes more complicated.
The transition from the old funds to the new always creates difficulties, particularly for voluntary sector recipients, who often do not have the resources and reserves to manage their way through the transition. There is always a delay in starting the new programme and we are now optimistically looking at June next year as a starting point. Some steps have been taken to minimise the impact for all current participating agencies and we do not think that the situation this year will be as difficult as it was last time the priorities were changed. This year, however, there is a considerable reduction in the overall funds that are coming to Scotland, and I have no doubt that some voluntary organisations will find it difficult to sustain their operations.
The European Commission has been active in exploring the issue of getting funds to local community groups, and is launching a series of social capital pilots, with the objective of giving small grants to local groups. SCVO will be running one of the three UK social capital pilot grant schemes to test the methods for making small sums of structural fund money more easily available without groups having to become the principal applicants. We hope that we can encourage the Commission to continue that strand of work.
The real dilemma for the voluntary sector lies in the big debate on how far the structural funds should target existing businesses as opposed to targeting unemployed people and communities facing exclusion. I do not need to tell members on which side of that debate the voluntary sector stands.
There is debate in Scotland about the different priorities to be accorded to proportions of the elements of the funds. Those are the micro-economic issues that are currently under consideration by the Scottish Executive, and I think that this committee should have a legitimate interest in them.
When we were undertaking research into this subject, we were greatly encouraged by the fact that some 300,000 people in Scotland were prepared to give so willingly of their time and money to run organisations. It is also significant that the sector now employs 100,000 people. Given that between £450 million and £500 million of public money goes into the voluntary sector, we clearly have to ensure not only that we get value for money, but that that money is used to the maximum possible effect.
Across the sector, one full-time employee supervises the work of three volunteers. We must bear in mind the fact that we are dealing with volunteers—who all, understandably, want to be involved in their own charity or organisation—but I wonder whether the evidence suggests that the voluntary sector could be better focused. As I go through the list of organisations, I notice that often two or three of them are, in effect, doing the same thing. One does not wish to exclude anyone from doing good work—far from it—but we must ensure that the good work provides the maximum possible benefit to the community.
I recognise that as one of the themes that ran through last week's debate. Those who work in the sector face a dilemma: on the one hand, if you see a list of organisations that are all doing the same thing at the same time, it is right to consider how their work could be streamlined and made more effective; on the other hand, the right of people to come together to pursue their own interests in their own way ought to be protected. In the current climate, marriages in the voluntary sector have been rather difficult to establish, although there have been one or two good examples of organisations merging. Perhaps an incentive scheme should be established to enable that to happen more effectively. However, the motivation of individuals is at the heart of the voluntary sector, and sometimes those individuals see things differently, as is their right.
Every working day, four new charities are formed in Scotland. That figure never ceased to stagger me. From one perspective, it indicates the vibrancy of the sector, although that is looking at it from a business perspective. However, we are not like businesses—we do not have a Bank of Scotland taking over another big business. We tend to have different motivations, which have to be respected, although I would not deny that there is added value to be had from organisations coming together.
I would like to add a couple of points that touch on what Stephen said about charity law. Without a statutory register in Scotland, it can be difficult to find out what charities exist. The Inland Revenue does not have the resources to provide information that might help a new organisation to avoid duplicating the work of another organisation. As Martin said, we know about all the new charities, but there is no incentive for anyone to deregister and say that their charity has closed down. We have no picture of the dynamics, so it is difficult to get an honest and holistic view.
I profoundly disagree with Bill. Although there is obviously a need for co-ordination and an umbrella organisation, we are dealing with the voluntary sector. The deputy chief constable of Lothian and Borders Police recently called for the drugs agencies to be streamlined. I get very worried about the word streamlining—it usually means culling. In other words, to reduce the number of agencies, some of them have to be killed off.
I know a bit about the drugs agencies. An enormous number of highly experienced people are dealing with the drugs issue on the front line. If agencies are culled, we might lose those people permanently, which would be an irreparable loss. We face a drugs crisis, but it would be infinitely worse if those people in those agencies were not doing the excellent work that they do. Would Martin like to comment on that, as he, too, mentioned streamlining?
As I said in my introduction, in principle, the diversity and pluralism of the voluntary sector is one of its strengths. In some circumstances, it can be a weakness. There is no doubt that the public think that there are too many charities—that is suggested by our opinion poll research. Nobody has yet come up with a scheme that retains the pluralism but reduces the number of organisations, and I am not sure whether that would be a desirable outcome.
I do not know whether the committee can tackle that either.
I refer to a table—I presume that it comes from you—that shows the sources of your funding in 1997-98. As I work it out, about 40 per cent of the funding comes from Government-type sources—grants from non-departmental public bodies, the national lottery, local authorities, central Government and Europe. The problem with that funding—you can probably tell us more about it—is that it is usually time-limited for about two or three years; at the end of the period voluntary organisations have to put together a jigsaw of different sources of funding to survive. You said that the Scottish Parliament should consider the operation of the new opportunities fund and the national lottery; could it not be argued that voluntary organisations should be offered the stability of three-year funding, which could be renewed at the end of the period if they are doing a good job in their area of expertise?
There certainly is a case for that. The Scottish Office and, I think, the Scottish Executive accepted in principle the case for three-year funding. It is honoured by public funding bodies as much in the breach as in the observance. We hope that, as the compact is implemented, the practice of three-year funding will be applied more widely.
Three years should be the minimum period of funding. Some organisations—including, it must be said, some parts of the lottery—make funding available for longer periods. Longer-term funding is clearly desirable when funding is for sport and infrastructure, or for work in areas of particular disadvantage. Urban programme funding and funding under social inclusion partnerships are usually for more than three years.
We come back to the point that, although we are dependent on public sources for about 35 per cent or 40 per cent of our total funding, the fact that the voluntary sector can draw in funding from many different sources helps to underpin the sector's independence. Of course we want to expand public funding for the sector and get funding on better terms, which allows for better planning, but we are keen to develop alternative sources of funding, as they are the guarantee of the autonomy of voluntary organisations.
I have a direct interest, as politicians always do in raising questions. In Mid Craigie and Linlathen, a deprived area of my constituency in Dundee, an under-12s project is coming to the end of its urban programme funding and is now faced with the dilemma of how to put together a package to keep going. When it turns to the new opportunities fund—the project provides homework classes—it is told that that fund is only for the generation of new places. Trying to access Government money is a nightmare for voluntary organisations. In poor areas of Dundee, such organisations do not have the option of getting big handouts from private sector organisations, so they need Government support. The Government must recognise that in some types of voluntary sector projects, particularly in poor areas, there has to be steady support from Government.
We could not agree more—that is one of the key issues. It is hugely inappropriate that new opportunities funding for out-of-school activities is for one year. Everybody, including Government and Government agencies, wants to fund the front end and not the continuation of work. That is the principal problem with statutory funding.
I am sure that those issues will be on our agenda.
I want to come back on two points. First, I confess that I am unenthusiastic about the charities law review. Is there clear evidence that the relatively unregulated system in Scotland causes problems other than those that exist in England, with its panoply of charity commissioners and so forth?
I am conscious that charities range from a whip-round in the pub upwards. Many come and go. There are also the long-standing institutional ones. Was there any evidence of the existing, wider laws on fraud not dealing with the problem?
My second point follows that of John McAllion on long-term funding. I am interested in the bridge-to-work angle, and in the number of people on placement. From my own, little, experience in citizens advice bureaux, I can say that a number of people were placed from time to time: it was often a halfway house to longer-term employment. It worked well.
Are there bureaucratic difficulties in the way of charities of whatever sort accessing such placements, with welfare-to-work arrangements for example? Are there things that we can do in that regard which will make life easier and make the take-up more effective?
My final point—I am sorry to go on a wee bit—also relates to funding. Would the models that you would recommend, in terms of local devolution, local voluntary organisations and umbrella organisations, assist with expertise, professionalism and access to funding, which is a key element?
As the time goes on, I will ask that we speed up, but we still have a wee bit of time.
Perhaps Connie can say something on the first question: on research evidence.
Charity fraud is difficult to measure because there is so little regulation. The Scottish Charities Office has a responsive role. It does not proactively investigate in the same way that the Charity Commission does in England. Essentially, we have no measure.
As members might be aware, the SCVO runs a register of charities in Scotland. In the absence of a statutory register, and legally, under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, any member of the public can ask for a copy of the annual accounts and the memorandum of a charity. We have been doing that on a rolling basis for four years. We still have around a 40 per cent non-response rate from recognised charities in Scotland. We would suggest that that is mostly accounted for by dormant charities, which no longer exist, or by people who are unaware of the legislation that obliges them to return those requests. Included in that figure are probably some fraudulent charities.
It is a chicken-and-egg situation: until we have tighter regulation, it is hard to assess how bad things are.
On your second question, Robert, about the bridge to work, the voluntary sector has a long, honourable history of trying to work with disadvantaged people to reconnect them to the labour market. I worked in a community programme in the 1980s—many people remember those experiences.
The current raft of initiatives includes the new deal, which is a much better funded programme than its predecessors. The voluntary sector is significantly involved in delivering one of the options of the new deal—the voluntary sector option—which has turned out to be a reasonable success in Scotland, compared with elsewhere in the UK, partly because the sector has produced a more coherent infrastructure to support that. At any time, around 1,000 young people are on placement with voluntary organisations, getting work experience and training. That is but one of a confusing number of initiatives. Structural funds have already been mentioned. There is also training for work, the enterprise network programme and skillseekers. Overall, the whole thing lacks coherence. There is a need for investigation into that lack of coherence and for an overview to see whether there is synergy between the different programmes.
As we indicated in our evidence, there are some difficulties with the new deal because the policy is not tailored to Scotland. It is difficult to influence the policy direction that the new deal is taking. That is a big fault line; some of the experience of groups is not reflected in the design of the network programme. Overall however, the new deal has been a success for the voluntary sector in Scotland.
The answer to Robert's last question is to examine the voluntary sector infrastructure at local level. A review of the role of councils in voluntary service has been commissioned. We welcome that very much, because we think that councils have a critical role in supporting local organisations that are seeking resources. That is the core service which councils need to provide to the many groups that need such support.
I was interested in what you said about the new opportunities fund. Perhaps the committee could raise the matter with the Executive, to find out what distinctive Scottish policy making there is for that fund.
My question concerns the relationship between the voluntary sector and the Parliament, and the two sides that there are to that relationship. This morning, a different committee is addressing the issue of lobbying. Voluntary sector organisations are not backwards in coming forwards in contacting us directly, and many of them have parliamentary officers. I am interested to know your view on that. Do you recommend that those officers join the Association of Scottish Public Affairs?
The second aspect of the relationship with the Parliament concerns the voluntary sector and the civic forum. I am sure that you were at last week's debate on that subject. I would like to hear your comments on the current position of the civic forum, how you think that should progress and the action that you think should be taken to get there.
I will respond to the first question. During the preparations for the Parliament, there were moves to set up an association of public affairs consultants in Scotland. The voluntary sector—the SCVO and a number of other organisations—was involved in discussions with the proposers of that initiative about whether it would be appropriate for voluntary organisations to join. The SCVO felt that there was a distinction between lobbying for profit and not for profit. Of course, by definition, voluntary organisations are not-for-profit lobbyists and campaigners.
The SCVO took the view that it would not join the association of public affairs consultants, and the great majority of voluntary organisations came to the same conclusion. One or two organisations might have joined, but generally, the voluntary sector was keen to distinguish its relationship with the Parliament from the commercial lobbyists' relationship. Events have probably proved that principle to be correct. The voluntary sector is keen to develop its role as a partner in policy making through the committee system of the Scottish Parliament and through direct contacts with individual MSPs, but our hope is that MSPs will recognise the difference between commercial lobbyists and voluntary organisation campaigners.
On the civic forum, I was sitting in the gallery and I think that George Reid got it absolutely right. I recognise the different ways in which responsibility for that ball has been passed around. However, the minister's response was right: this is not just a voluntary sector agenda. In fact, it cannot be viewed as just a voluntary sector agenda. Voluntary organisations are hugely enthusiastic about the civic forum, and the sector has much to gain from participating in dialogue with other social partners and with the Government and Parliament on ways in which the civic forum will work.
Unfortunately, we have locked ourselves into a set of issues about resourcing the activities of the civic forum without having the open debate that there should have been about the ways in which a structure such as the one that is proposed could add value to participation in the work of the Parliament. That is the debate that we ought to have, but we are discussing with officials how or whether and at what level the civic forum should be funded. That is unfortunate. We would have preferred all those resourcing issues to have been resolved, so that when the Parliament assumed its powers and responsibilities, the civic forum was there and able to undertake its many functions. There is great enthusiasm for it. I cannot give you a special insight because I have none, but there is still a hope that the funding issues can be resolved so that we can create a more participative culture and include voices in the debate that currently are not heard.
I preface my remarks by registering an interest: I am a member of the board of management of the Volunteer Centre in Glasgow and have been for the past four years. That will not impact on either of the points that I want to make.
The first concerns the important issue—also raised by Fiona Hyslop—of the sector's relationship with the national lottery and the new opportunities fund. Before the legislation that introduced the new opportunities fund was passed, discussion took place on whether there should be a Scottish equivalent, for that fund, of the National Lottery Charities Board's Scottish committee. The view at the time was that account should be taken of Scottish interests. Many people thought that that was not an adequate response.
What has been the SCVO's experience of the new opportunities fund? Although the lottery is a reserved matter, how does Stephen Maxwell think the committee could try to advance the effect of funding from the new opportunities fund in Scotland? Stephen mentioned that a commitment had been made to try to "Scotticise" the fund as far as possible—to what extent has that happened?
My second point concerns something that Connie said about a register of charities and voluntary organisations in Scotland. I was astonished to hear that four such groups are set up every week.
No, it is four every day.
In that case, how many close down every day? Does the SCVO monitor that figure and does it, or any other body, give advice to new charities or voluntary organisations to try to ensure that they have a longer shelf-life than the figures would suggest?
The case was made during the passage of the legislation that provision should be made for a Scottish committee or advisory group on the new opportunities fund. An advisory group exists for healthy living centres and there is a separate structure for the child care stream, but no Scottish advisory group for the new opportunities fund is capable of taking an overall view of fund allocations or identifying how adequate those allocations are for Scottish conditions and priorities. That dimension might be worth pursuing. In addition, Parliament might seek to have formal powers to issue policy directions to the new opportunities fund, to cover its Scottish operations. There is a commitment to do that from the First Minister, but it has not yet been carried out.
Mike Watson asked what evidence exists so far on how the lack of a Scottish structure has affected the operation of the new opportunities fund. Perhaps it is a little early to be sure—for example, the healthy living centres have only a limited number of applications—so it is difficult to generalise. On child care provision, there are certainly concerns that the allocations that are being made and the structures that are in place do not give sufficient support to the voluntary sector's contribution. In particular, the allocations and structures do not give sufficient support to the growth of the voluntary sector's capacity to contribute to the range of child care provision. However, these are relatively early days and the situation would be well worth monitoring, to ascertain whether firm evidence emerges on how the lack of a firm Scottish structure affects the operation of the fund in Scotland.
The advice that organisations receive on establishing themselves as charities is the core business of the infrastructure organisations—such as the SCVO's information office and a number of the councils for voluntary service throughout Scotland—which spend a lot of time providing that support. I understand that the appropriate part of the Inland Revenue can also give some assistance and is preparing a booklet about how to become a charity. However, there is a weakness in the support that volunteers receive so that they can fully realise some of their legal obligations, and more could be done to help them.
In addition, if the provision of such support is the core business of infrastructure organisations, that work will come under threat if the organisations' core funding is threatened. I hope that a review of charity law would consider appropriate support and advice for voluntary organisations and charities.
There is no incentive for charities to de-register, although charities sometimes inform the Inland Revenue as a matter of good will. Our research suggests that there is at least 11 per cent dormancy—charities that are not active but whose names have not been removed from the Inland Revenue's charity index.
The situation in England is that the Charity Commission publishes a wide range of booklets that provide quasi-judicial advice to organisations, and if organisations follow that advice, they are indemnified. Such advice is not available in Scotland. We can give out advice about best practice, but if a group of charity managers wanted to establish whether an action was charitable, they would have to go to the Court of Session. Many groups do not want to do that.
Could you give me an idea of what is happening on the campaign for the waiver on water rates? What does the SCVO think that the committee could do to assist the campaign?
Could you give me an idea of what the current position is with regard to three-year funding from local authorities to the voluntary sector? What concerns do you have about the overall input of funding from local authorities, especially in light of some of the things that were said in the voluntary sector debate last week about developing closer, perhaps even statutory, links?
It was clear that many organisations were taken by surprise when they received substantial water bills for the first time this year. Without any consultation, the water authorities decided to change their approach to relief for charities. They did so with a scheme that involved some difficult delineation between different types of charity—they seemed to be proposing a scheme whereby youth clubs and church halls were offered continued exemption while other charities were not. That did not seem to be viable.
The Minister for Transport and the Environment agreed that the water authorities had not consulted the sector as they were required to do by the compact. She said that organisations had not been given sufficient time to consider how they might raise the additional resources that would be needed to pay the new bills. The scheme has been cancelled for the current year and we are pleased that the Executive has taken that action. The SCVO will now enter discussions with the water authorities, to examine how charities are affected by water rates. The bottom line is that the water boards have a legal requirement to treat all their customers equally, and we need to explore what that means in terms of charity relief. If there are to be charges, they will have to be introduced with sufficient notice over a period of time and with a coherent scheme to back them up.
The sector's relationship with local government is crucial. It covers much more than funding, but funding is the most important part. Local authorities provide about £110 million or £120 million a year to voluntary organisations and they also provide support in kind.
A stream of work with local authorities predates the compact and has resulted in policy guidance from COSLA on the funding of voluntary organisations. That policy guidance states the commitment of councils to extending three-year funding to voluntary organisations.
The funding relationship has been influenced by the financial problems that local authorities have faced. The evidence that we have—and it is not precise evidence—suggests that there has been a fall in the support that the voluntary sector has received from councils during the past two to four years. That is a matter of great concern and lies behind some of the difficulties that are faced by organisations that are, for example, coming out of seven-year urban programme funding.
We are greatly concerned that COSLA, on behalf of the councils, should take a supportive attitude to the funding issues faced by voluntary organisations. We are keen to develop further our relationship with COSLA and the councils.
I want to ask two very different questions. The first concerns the operation of the SCVO and follows on from Fiona Hyslop's point about how important it is for the Parliament to engage with the voluntary sector. If the SCVO sees itself as one of the key players in interfacing with the Parliament, how will the organisation ensure that it liaises regularly with all voluntary and community organisations?
My second question touches on the point that was raised about the issues that the committee can examine, in particular Scottish Criminal Record Office checks. As someone who has been a volunteer in the voluntary sector—I was involved with the Girls Brigade—I appreciate what that will cost the brigade, never mind the entire voluntary sector. However, I also appreciate the importance of properly vetting all volunteers. The Girls Brigade is a unique organisation, in that its volunteers tend to come up through the ranks, which is not the case for most voluntary organisations. I would not want that to be the case, because it would exclude many people from taking part in the voluntary sector. Are there other ways of vetting people properly without the heavy cost implications of SCRO checks? Furthermore, are such checks effective in telling us whether people are suitable to be volunteers?
It is difficult to give a short answer to both questions. Part of the answer to the first question is that voluntary organisations will always find a way to the table to get their individual voices heard. The SCVO spends a lot of its time encouraging that process and enabling organisations to articulate their priorities instead of streamlining them into one organisation. The sector is too diverse and pluralistic to allow such streamlining.
The SCVO tends to focus on generic issues. Seventy per cent of the sector by turnover has direct or indirect membership of the organisation. Although there are 44,000 organisations in the field, only 1,100 are direct members of the SCVO, so it is important that those in the sector keep speaking to one another and that the networks and infrastructure, which are critical to the sector's health and success, function effectively. In Scotland, we have a much more coherent infrastructure than elsewhere in the UK, which means that, in practice, programmes such as the new deal are more effective.
Communications are never perfect. More always needs to be done to make sure that grass-roots organisations, in particular, can contribute their unique perspective to public policy. We welcome the commitment to a guaranteed place for a voluntary sector representative on bodies such as social inclusion partnerships. However, that puts added weight on those representatives, to make sure that they hear the many groups that want to speak in that debate. Although there are no simple answers, the sector appreciates the need to preserve diversity and pluralism and to allow organisations to express themselves directly to Parliament.
In answer to the second question, the sector by and large accepts that SCRO checks will happen. However, such checks will tell us only whether someone has a criminal record, not whether he or she is a suitable volunteer or whether something will go wrong in future. Now that criminal record checks have been accepted as inevitable, the debate has centred on how that process should be resourced.
In commercial terms, it makes no sense to issue an invoice for £10, because it probably costs more than that to process the payment. From our perspective, it is not sensible to have 60 to 100 cheques with a £10 bill attached to them. We do not want volunteers, who are a critical element of the voluntary sector, and organisations that work largely with volunteers to be hampered in their work by having to meet those costs. Nor do we think that the costs should be borne by individual volunteers, because that might deter them. The sums of money are relatively modest, but individual organisations such as the Girls Brigade and the Guide Association, to which I spoke recently, are hugely concerned about how those costs will affect them.
If there is to be relief on the cost of cheques, that has to be implemented UK-wide. If not, organisations might simply move up north, as has already happened in the charity sector. Ministers have told me that if relief were given solely in Scotland, that could become a major problem.
That is an issue that we will have to consider. It will be on our agenda again.
I am not sure that I accept Mr Raffan's analysis.
There is obviously disagreement about that.
There was no time for me to put my questions to the witnesses. I wanted to ask you about the difference between the community and voluntary sectors, but we will discuss that on another occasion.
I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for an excellent presentation. It was focused in an extremely helpful way. We will undoubtedly return to those themes. We are about to move on to other aspects of the problem. When we deal with them, we need to take account of the specific questions that you raised and to reflect on some of the issues relating to charity law.
Unfortunately, we did not have a chance to discuss with you in depth issues such as independence. I understand that you would be more than willing to meet us formally and informally to do that. I assure you that this matter will remain on our agenda and that we will return to it. Thank you for your presentation and for the work that you do. We look forward to having an on-going relationship with you.
Thank you for your interest in our work. We look forward to hearing from you and continuing the dialogue.