Voluntary Sector
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-240, in the name of Miss Wendy Alexander, on the Scottish Executive's compact with the voluntary sector, and the amendments to that motion.
I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request buttons now.
On a point of order. Rule 13.2 of the standing orders provides for ministerial statements. In the light of what we read in the press this morning, do the standing orders provide for ministerial retractions?
On a point of order.
Mr MacAskill, is it the same point of order?
Yes. I wish to raise the concern that my colleague just made regarding repeated statements to the press before matters are announced in this chamber. Last week, a public transport fund allocation was intimated in a press release. Like Fergus Ewing, I heard on the BBC this morning that there will be a recanting with regard to road tolls in tomorrow's debate on the strategic roads review. Neither of those matters have come before the Transport and the Environment Committee, any other committee, or this chamber.
Sir David, I ask you to rule that that democratic deficit is unacceptable and that matters should be brought to this chamber first, rather than the press corps.
I have had a letter from Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on the issue that was addressed by those points of order. I do not know whether the subject of tolls will be included in tomorrow's statement on the roads strategy. If it were raised, I would deprecate that information being given to a newspaper before it is given to this Parliament. On the other hand, if the information came from a leak from a ministerial meeting, that is not a matter for me, it is a matter for the Executive. We will wait and see what happens tomorrow.
The Scottish Executive places particular importance on its relationship with the voluntary sector. I know that this Parliament also values the voluntary sector, and acknowledges its significant contribution to Scottish society.
In this debate, we have the opportunity to outline our thinking in taking that relationship forward, recognising the central role that the voluntary sector has in policy development, service provision and community empowerment and, indeed, recognising the sector as an economic force in its own right.
We need to put in place the foundations to realise our shared vision for Scotland and create a framework to sort out institutional relationships, enhance local capacity and establish a solid platform from which the sector can grow and flourish.
Clearly, given the importance that we attach to the voluntary sector, and given that the public and voluntary sectors find their respective interests overlapping more and more frequently, there are benefits in setting out the principles that should underpin the relationship between the two sectors, when they choose to work together.
We talk a lot about partnership, but we have to mean it. We have to understand each other's working methods, strengths and constraints. That means giving recognition to the third sector through a new relationship. The focus of this debate is on a new way of working with the voluntary sector. We aim to do that through the Scottish compact.
As many of you will know, the Scottish compact was launched exactly a year ago by Sam Galbraith and enshrines the mutual commitments to partnership working on the part of central Government and the voluntary sector.
The compact applies to all central Government departments and agencies. It was developed by a joint working group drawn from across the Scottish Office and the voluntary sector in Scotland, and was subject to wide consultation before it was published in October 1998. The compact is one of four: England, Wales and Northern Ireland each have one. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the voluntary sector are working on equivalent guidance for use at local level.
Partnership can, of course, be based only on shared values. The compact is built on those shared values: a democratic society, the rights of individuals to associate freely in pursuit of a common purpose; active citizenship that recognises that the participation of individuals is a key mechanism in our drive for community empowerment; pluralism; and equality. We share the common commitment to quality of services; to collaboration to address people's often complex needs; and to sustainability, the ability to address today's needs without damaging the interests of future generations.
The objectives of the compact are to encourage good practice and co-operative methods of decision making and to nurture the voluntary
sector infrastructure. We also want to encourage voluntary organisations and charities through co-operation and training; to encourage volunteering as an expression of active citizenship; and to recognise the specific needs and special contributions made by groupings within the sector, such as the black and ethnic minority voluntary sector, organisations for disabled people and voluntary groups in rural areas. The compact was also designed to ensure that we in government measure and recognise the things that really matter; that we co-ordinate the relationship with the sector across public bodies; and that we take carefully into account the impact of policy changes on the sector.
The compact aims to deliver benefits by enabling the voluntary sector to have a voice in the development of public policy and by making Scottish Executive departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies responsive to the needs, and the potential, of the sector. It achieves that by strengthening the dialogue between Government and the voluntary sector, providing channels of communication for its wider constituency. The compact will assist us in developing our strategic thinking and long-term vision; more important, if the sector is directly involved in the design of policy, we are more likely to get it right.
The sector has been concerned that its independence should not be threatened by co-operation, collaboration and partnership with the Government. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Executive has never, and should never, seek to own the voluntary sector. That would run counter to our whole thinking about how society should work. All our policy themes—active citizenship, individual participation, volunteering, the giving age, active communities and community empowerment—depend on the freedom and independence of individuals and organisations. The compact defends the independence of the voluntary sector, and emphasises its value as both critic and policy advocate. Let us be crystal clear on this point. We support the sector's right and, indeed, responsibility to challenge Government when we get it wrong. I would expect nothing less.
Of course, as it stands, the compact is simply a statement of principles. Those principles have to be put into practice. To flesh out the Government commitments to the voluntary sector contained in the compact, good practice guides for Scottish Executive departments and the agencies to which I referred previously are in the process of being drafted. They will provide guidance on such issues as funding, consultation, policy proofing, partnership working and cross-departmental working.
As members will know, we have been taking other measures in the Executive to assist our new relationship with the voluntary sector. Action to strengthen the role of the voluntary issues unit within the Executive has been long campaigned for by the sector under the leadership of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. As the Parliament is aware, we have relocated that unit to within the Executive secretariat to work exclusively on voluntary sector issues and to champion a more strategic approach to funding and promoting the interests of the sector across the Executive. That signals the central place that the sector has in our thinking.
This time last year, of course, it was not possible for Scottish Office ministers to make future commitments on behalf of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. However, it was hoped that the Executive and the Parliament would endorse the compact or draw on it to develop their own agreement with the voluntary sector.
The Scottish Executive has endorsed the compact. My purpose in inviting Parliament to do likewise is to give fresh impetus to the relationship between central Government and the voluntary sector and to signal our commitment to working in partnership with it. This will send a signal of the importance that Parliament attaches to joint working, which lies at the heart of building the new Scotland.
The compact must be only the beginning of a process, a starting point for the really hard work, when we must all learn to understand and accommodate each other's working practices. The compact will really succeed if it not only sorts out relationships between Government and the voluntary sector but helps to build stronger and better relationships at local level. We welcome the work that COSLA has been doing on voluntary sector policy statements and guidance on funding. Those will help to build the new partnerships at local level that we are so anxious to achieve, because it is at that level that the real benefits of our community empowerment approach will be delivered to people.
That leads me on to the issue of infrastructure support at the local level. While the Scottish Executive already supports the voluntary sector infrastructure with core funding to national voluntary organisations, we also recognise that voluntary and community groups need continuing infrastructure support locally. For that reason, we already provide funding to infrastructure bodies in Scotland at the local level, but there are gaps. Arrangements are in place to ensure that every local authority area has a volunteering development agency by the end of March 2000, providing support for and encouragement of active citizenship.
There are gaps in the network of councils for
voluntary service. We want to make sure that community activists in all parts of Scotland have a local CVS to turn to for support, so we have commissioned a review of the present CVS infrastructure. We aim to ensure that crucial services such as training, management support and help with funding applications are put in place. The steering group has representatives from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Councils for Voluntary Service, Scotland, to ensure that we understand the issues.
Our success will be measured by how well we reconcile the different needs of the sector, across urban and rural areas, within a more secure strategy that sets the standards for the years to come. The voluntary sector is changing and we all need to recognise the nature of that change and be willing to promote it.
The review is in the fast track, and I have this week received the first part of the consultants report. The report by Eglinton Management Centre is tasked with addressing the role of the CVS in building community capacity, developing organisational measures to strengthen the network to support the role of the individual CVS in capacity building, and finding out whether the present structure of funding can be improved. The review will also develop qualitative performance measures, building on the work of CVS Scotland.
Let me share with members some of the emerging conclusions. The interim consultants report has recognised the passion and commitment that is common across the CVS network, on which we want to build.
I thank the minister for giving way.
I note the minister's words on building strength and building together, with local authorities at the core. Will she join me in asking Glasgow City Council not to quadruple its charges from £5 a day to £20 for letting school facilities to voluntary organisations? At one fell swoop, that will completely demolish many of the voluntary groups in the city of Glasgow, as, quite frankly, they cannot afford those letting charges. Will the minister condemn the council's proposals?
Sometimes I find it difficult to determine whether the member is a member of the Scottish Parliament or a councillor on Glasgow City Council. However, the compact sets out quite clearly the relationship that we want, not just from the Scottish Executive's point of view but from the viewpoint of local authorities and the wider community.
Will the minister give way?
No, I intend to carry on. I was at the point of sharing with members some of the emerging conclusions of the review. In fairness to the work of the CVS network, it is important that I put these comments on record.
I said that the interim consultants report recognised the passion and commitment that is common across the CVS network. Its recommendations include the development of the role of the CVS, refocusing their activity to promote and support capacity building in the community. It also recommends reorganisation, where appropriate, along community planning boundaries on a federal or confederal basis; developing a shared funding approach that brings together the Scottish Executive and a range of key agencies; and the possibility of developing a wide- ranging training programme for staff and volunteer managers of the CVS and other agencies.
The review made proposals that should enable the network to build the capacity of the sector and of the local community and to work with local social inclusion agencies to develop their agenda. A further report on performance management will be available at the end of November, and I have asked the consultants to do some further modelling on funding arrangements by the end of the year. These recommendations will be considered in detail, and I will bring back the conclusions to Parliament for discussion.
Let me turn now to charity law, as it is of key importance to the voluntary sector and to charities that we get right the legal framework in which they operate. I will give members a little background. Charities that operate in Scotland are regulated under a number of pieces of statute that have been in operation for some time. The main provisions are in part I of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. Public charitable collections are regulated under section 119 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, and educational endowments are governed by the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Aside from the plethora of acts, there is a need to assess the effectiveness of the present legislation.
Members will be aware of the work of the charity law research unit at the University of Dundee, which has been researching and examining the effectiveness of the existing legislation. The research has been completed and the unit is close to providing the Scottish Executive with a final report. We are already aware of the key themes and likely recommendations of the Dundee research. We have also been in close touch with the voluntary sector. We feel confident that now is the time to start setting up the mechanisms to meet this partnership's commitment to the voluntary sector. Therefore, I am delighted to announce today the establishment of an independent commission to review and reform
charity law in Scotland.
Although the Dundee research will be a key tool for the commission, its starting point was the existing legislation. We need to move forward. The voluntary sector and charities are changing. Their contribution to the social economy accounts for 5 per cent of gross domestic product and the sector employs 100,000 people. The commission will need to address that and other issues, such as setting the right level of accountability to the donating public without placing too heavy a burden on the charitable sector. Charities also require definitive advice and information and the commission will want to examine how best that might be done.
In due course, I will make a further announcement to Parliament setting out the chair and membership of the commission, its detailed remit and the timetable for action.
The Scottish Executive cares about the voluntary sector. The third sector is about empowering communities. That is our starting point.
The sector is at the sharp end of the problems that exist in society today. Voluntary organisations work with the poor, to tackle the roots of exclusion and to empower communities to plan their own futures. Voluntary organisations frequently speak for those at the margins of society. The sector has values, which we as a Government also hold. Let us recognise the significant contribution that the voluntary sector makes to Scottish society and, today, let us set in place the foundations on which the sector can grow and flourish.
I move,
That the Parliament acknowledges the significant role played by the voluntary sector in service delivery, its commitment to the social economy and its growing role in policy development and in strengthening communities, and in recognition of the commitment to the voluntary sector welcomes and endorses the Scottish Compact which has been developed in partnership with the sector, as this will provide the basis for a shared understanding of the relationship and responsibilities between the Scottish Executive and the voluntary sector to their mutual benefit and serve as a firm foundation on which to build for the future.
I thank the Executive for giving us the opportunity to hold a major debate, for a second time, on the voluntary sector. I welcome the initiative as part of the further development of an inclusive democracy for Scotland. It follows on timeously from the Minister for Finance's announcement last week on the provision of funding for the civic forum. Both the compact and the independent body that the SNP amendment proposes would further extend the democratic process in Scotland and would put our nation in the vanguard of inclusive politics and the development of civic society.
There is no question that the establishment of the compact is welcomed, particularly by the voluntary sector and by all the parties in the Parliament. I am sure that we would all commend the considerable work that has been put into taking the initiative forward. At the outset of today's debate, I would like to acknowledge all those who have contributed to that, particularly the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Executive and the many voluntary organisations that are represented in the public gallery today.
I hope that the compact will be a milestone in Scotland's new civic landscape and a turning point in the relationship between statutory and non-statutory bodies. Although the compact itself may not represent a complete meeting of minds, it is certainly a great opportunity to take a step in the right direction.
There is scope for greater involvement through the creation of an independent body. The SNP lodged its amendment with one aim in mind: the promotion of inclusion and the extension to as many organisations in Scotland as possible of the benefits that the compact will bring.
Why is the amendment necessary? We have to accept that certain organisations—some by virtue of their democratic structures and others because of their purpose—will find their perceived independence compromised by signing up to the compact. Indeed, that is acknowledged in the document "The Scottish Compact":
"The Compact acknowledges that the voluntary sector and the Government have their own spheres of action with different roles, responsibilities and resources. It is accepted that not all voluntary organisations will have an interest in seeking partnership with Government. Some will prefer to pursue their own objectives without reference to the state. Others may find themselves more often in opposition to the Government than in partnership."
The final sentence is the crux of why we lodged the amendment. Organisations must not be excluded from the possibility of partnership, regardless of whether they are in opposition to— or, indeed, in agreement with—the Government.
Many organisations have expressed concern that the third sector could be artificially divided into a two-tier structure: into those that are actively involved in the delivery of social provision and that assist the Executive, in particular, with the delivery of social inclusion policy; and into those that, by their nature, are campaigning organisations and pressure groups. Such organisations fear that failing to sign up to the compact will give rise to a them-and-us situation—those that are in and those that are out, or those that have signed the compact and those that, for whatever reason, feel
unable to do so.
Our aim must be to avoid such division. We believe that it is absolutely essential to put in place structures to enable as much as possible of the third sector in Scotland to sign up to the document. We believe that the establishment of an independent development body, whose remit would be to oversee the compact and to examine and—as it says in the document—to extend the boundaries of the compact, will allay some of the fears that many organisations have, and enable the compact to develop rapidly towards including the whole of the third sector.
A number of factors are vital to the improvement of the quality of life in our country. The relationship between Government and funding bodies has sometimes been difficult—for instance, when a third-sector organisation has found itself at odds with the political ethos of the day. The creation of an independent body would allow us to leave that baggage firmly in the past so that there is no repeat of the unfortunate divisions experienced particularly by those organisations concerned with environment, housing, health care and drug abuse issues.
I want to examine the problems experienced by some of the organisations working in the areas of drugs and health care. We are all aware that the organisations dealing with drugs and health care are diverse—that is their nature. They represent a wide range of views and serve different needs, sometimes with different objectives. In many cases, their objectives are different from those of local and central Government. At one end of the spectrum are organisations such as Scotland Against Drugs, zero-tolerance organisations and the Just Say No campaign. At the other end are those involved in harm-reduction measures, promoted, for instance, by Crew 2000 and the late, lamented Enhance project in Glasgow. This is not the time for a debate about the relative merits of the many, diverse approaches to drugs issues. However, few people would disagree that the work of each of those organisations is valuable in its different way.
Historically, harm-reduction organisations have been in competition with zero-tolerance organisations for funding. Much of Government philosophy on the matter discourages harm- reduction organisations from becoming involved. I do not want to take this debate down the road of drugs policy, but it highlights the problem when challenge funding structures are used. The danger for any organisation that does not sing from the same hymn book as the Executive—this one or previous Administrations—is that that organisation will be forced to change the service that it delivers to one that the funder wants and that fits into the context of the dominant political opinion of the time.
Enhance, a drugs awareness and education outreach organisation based in Glasgow, is a prime example. Under the previous Administration, Enhance found itself in an intolerable situation when the political climate was "just say no". The organisation's pioneering work, principally with those involved in dance and club culture, was undermined and, finally, ended by pressure from funding organisations that wanted to limit the harm-reduction message that Enhance had so successfully delivered, not only to those involved in dance culture at the user end, but to promoters and club owners, who benefited directly from the information, education and advice provided by Enhance. The organisation found itself at odds with local and central Government; in attempting to meet some of the requirements of the funding bodies, it found that it was no longer effective in delivering its message, because that message had become distorted. A very positive reputation in the club culture was damaged and, eventually, Enhance ceased to function.
If there had been an independent body, of the type that we propose, to mediate and communicate with the funding bodies on behalf of organisations such as Enhance, within the context of the compact, Enhance's positive and successful work could be continuing. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Enhance is only one of many organisations whose services can become a political football. Let us hope, however, that the proposed Executive drugs inquiry will end the conflict between zero tolerance and harm reduction.
Drug use in Scotland is on the way up, with at least 8,000 new injecting users recorded last year—that figure is possibly an underestimation. There were 276 drug deaths in Scotland last year, and in Strathclyde alone there have been 118 so far this year.
Those statistics are a tragic illustration of the fact that we need more than a simplistic "just say no" message and an endorsement of the need for work on harm reduction. How do we ensure that the agencies dealing with that vital harm-reduction aspect of the drug issue are part of the new compact? How do we ensure that the agencies, whose priority is to save the lives of those already abusing drugs, are also included? I hope that none among us would question the inclusion of such agencies in the compact, but it is difficult to see how organisations such as Crew 2000, seemingly at odds with current policy, could comfortably sign up to a compact that could become binding, especially as they can barely secure funding even now.
It is vital that we work to protect the independence of organisations. The compact goes
a long way towards doing that, but we suggest that it does not go far enough. We have to reassure organisations that their purpose and objectives will not be squashed in the face of Government policy; we must reassure them that signing up to the compact will not mean that they become simply another service delivery arm of the Executive to be shaped by Executive direction and policy.
An independent development body is not just about building confidence. It could ensure that there is clear water between the Executive and the spectrum of policies that are carried out by the voluntary sector. That would create room for all participants, not just in the drugs field but beyond.
Many environmental groups are diametrically opposed to aspects of Government policy—and indeed to SNP policy—and many have found themselves involved in litigation against the previous and current Governments at local and national levels. The formation of an independent body may go a long way towards stopping court action being the only recourse for some in the third sector, particularly those dealing with environmental issues.
The principles of sustainability have not been adequately addressed in the "The Scottish Compact". I mentioned the polarisation between organisations that are in and those that are out. It is clear that the main thrust of the document is on social welfare. That is vital, but such organisations form only a portion of the voluntary sector's composition. The genuinely legitimate role of environmental organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds must not be overlooked or marginalised. We need to give reassurance—and we need to consider the concerns expressed by the organisations—about the composition of the compact and its working party.
Our amendment would go some way towards bringing that part of the Scottish third sector firmly on board. The idea of an independent body enjoys the support of many from across the sector, including the Scottish Drugs Forum, Barnardo's, YouthLink Scotland, Fairbridge in Scotland, Children 1st, Help the Aged, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, Volunteer Development Scotland, Age Concern and Crew 2000.
It is important to remember, however, that the compact is, as the document says, only the first step on the road to a new relationship between the third sector in Scotland and the Executive. The next step is surely to extend the boundaries of the compact and put in place a framework that will accommodate all sections of the third sector.
I look forward to the day when the boundaries proposed in the Scottish compact are rolled back so far that Greenpeace would feel able to sign up to it.
I move amendment S1M-240.1, to insert at end:
"and furthermore recognises the need for an independent body to be established with the remit to provide pro-active support for the development and promotion of the entire voluntary sector, and in particular to encourage co-operation between Compact signatories, non Compact signatories and the Scottish Executive."
In the main, I support the thrust of the motion. However, I feel that yet another endorsement of the Scottish compact is just a bit over the top, especially as the compact does not come into force until next year. At the moment, the statement on the compact is pretty much a statement of intent.
Today is the third time in as many months that the chamber has debated these issues. While it is one thing to acknowledge and give credit to the great work that is done by the many volunteers, it is another thing for the Executive to offer little else for us to talk about—and it is yet another thing when the Executive underlines mutual benefit time and again.
The high number of full-time and part-time jobs created in the sector has a recognised positive effect on employment figures. I do not underestimate in any way the importance of many of those jobs, although if I have time later I will express my concern about the extent of overlap. The voluntary sector is the fastest-growing employment area in the United Kingdom. As more and more services are provided by the voluntary sector, that trend is likely to continue. The Scottish voluntary sector, in which we all take pride, has 44,000 organisations working within it and 100,000 paid staff. It also has 300,000 regular volunteers and twice that number of occasional volunteers.
The voluntary sector is the third force in the Scottish economy, with an income of some £1.8 billion. The sector is independent—to an extent— not-profit distributing and non-statutory, but it receives some 26 per cent of its income from public sector finances. That compares with 22 per cent from donations and 30 per cent that is earned from trading, rents and investments. Grants from the national lottery make up around 7 per cent of voluntary sector income. Funding is very important to the voluntary sector's independence.
The minister referred to the CVS review. The Scottish Executive commissioned the Eglinton report some time ago. That report was to be produced within a short time scale—it is interesting to note that the minister has now received a first report from that source. The SCVO welcomed the review, but expressed some concerns over the short time that was available for
the report to be produced. It also underlined the fact that the independence of the voluntary sector is a prerequisite to its success. Our amendment addresses that issue. I urge the minister to satisfy the voluntary sector plan and accept our amendment.
When the Scottish Executive talks about partnership, there is a feeling that that involves more than an element of direction and control. As I proceed, I will express some views on why I think that that is the case, despite the fact that the minister said that it was far from her intent. The partnership between the Executive, the voluntary sector and the Scottish public must be based on respect for the voluntary sector's independence. The sector's diversity should be recognised as a strength, but care must be taken to ensure that public funding does not create overlap and a situation in which groups work with opposing objectives.
I listened with interest to Lloyd Quinan's comments on drugs. I believe that it is the Scottish Executive's responsibility to give clear directions on such issues. I accept that that may mean that some organisations will be funded and that others will not. I also accept that, in the main, voluntary organisations should pursue their independent objectives, but I suggest that public sector money should not be used to fund objectives that cut across overall Government policy.
Although this compact was jointly agreed by the Government and the voluntary sector, the Government's prime motivation seems to be a desire to control the sector and to target its work on Government priorities. Although there are many shared goals, the compact is likely to lead to conflict about emphasis and priorities, and to a loss of independence for the voluntary sector.
The voluntary sector will be directed by Government under contract, rather than by the sector's principles of channelling help to where it is most needed. Although the voluntary sector may receive Government resources, at times it will have little control over how those resources are spent—resources will be targeted. The danger is that the voluntary sector will serve the Government's agenda.
Phil Gallie displays a total misunderstanding of the role of the voluntary sector. The voluntary sector has made very clear what it wishes to do. It is in partnership with the Government in certain areas. There is no way that the compact implies any restriction on organisations' independent views—they can still express opinions to the Government. Phil Gallie shows a complete misunderstanding of the entire project. Perhaps he should listen to many more voluntary organisations to ascertain their views.
I do not think that I misunderstand this issue. I am outlining a justifiable fear, as it is obvious that, when organisations are funded to a large extent by the public sector, they have to follow directions. That is what I am trying to bring to the attention of the minister and the chamber.
Labour's approach to this issue is seen most starkly with the new opportunities fund, where there clearly is direction—more than £100 million is diverted from charities to provide a top-up for services that would usually be provided through taxation. That cuts across everything that the national lottery was set up to achieve. The new opportunities fund puts the original principles of the lottery at risk. The money is used to fund the Government's priorities rather than bids by charities that are based on knowledge of local need. In many instances, money is directed to Labour's pet projects.
A recent declaration of accounts for the new opportunities fund showed that 100 per cent of the grants that were made went to projects involved in child care. I suspect that that was very much in line with what the Government wanted, but that it was not necessarily in line with what all voluntary organisations wanted.
Does Phil Gallie recognise the particular role of women in the voluntary sector? Women in the voluntary sector welcome the emphasis that this Government places on child care. In the voluntary sector, one hears time and again about the importance of good quality child care in enabling people to participate in whatever way they choose.
I accept totally what Johann Lamont says about the importance of women to the voluntary sector. I suspect that 60 to 70 per cent of people who actively give their service to the voluntary service are women—once again, I pay tribute to them for that. That is slightly different from my point about the Government's direction of funding towards its pet projects.
In examining funding of the voluntary sector, we can see the effect of taxation on its activities. Local authorities have had to award their workers pay settlements above the rate of inflation; they have had to make up for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's raid on pension funds, but their funding has not been increased to take account of that. The voluntary sector is the first area that local authorities, which are its principal funders, will look to for cost savings—it is a favoured target area.
The chancellor—the Westminster politician of the year—has removed advance corporation tax credits, costing Scottish voluntary organisations £40 million a year. He has increased motoring taxes hugely, which affects voluntary workers who are prepared to provide their own transport and
which adds to the costs of staff transport for organisations. He has increased the overall tax burden on individuals, reducing their ability to give to charity. He has taken 15 per cent of all public donations for the Treasury through unrecoverable VAT—£46 million a year from Scotland.
Phil Gallie gives tax statistics, but does he agree that the facts show that the top 20 per cent in our society now pay less in tax than the bottom 20 per cent do?
In terms of VAT and some other taxes, what Mr Sheridan suggests is the case. However many of the so-called fat cats are people who generate jobs and wealth. There must be a balance somewhere along the line.
Would the member remind us what VAT rates were in 1979 and what they were when the Conservatives left their period in power?
I recall that VAT rates at that time were something like 25 per cent—
No!
They were 9 per cent.
At that time there were also lower rates, because VAT levels were split, and the Conservatives went for an all-embracing level. Having said that—
On a point of order. Is it in order for a member to give misinformation to the Parliament in reply to a question and deliberately to—
It was his understanding.
Oh. If it was really that, I withdraw.
My recollection of the 1979 election is that the equalisation of VAT rates was an aim. My understanding is that there were VAT levels at 25 per cent as well as at lower levels. If I am wrong, fair enough, but that is my understanding and at no time would I ever intentionally mislead the Parliament in the way that the gentleman suggested.
The Conservatives did the voluntary sector proud over the years. They introduced means of encouraging charitable donations through the payroll and in other ways. This Government has continued that, but it could do much more. A major improvement—it is up to the chancellor, but this Parliament should put pressure on him—would be to give voluntary organisations the right to retrieve the VAT that they have paid.
I move amendment S1M-240.2, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
"stresses its commitment to maintaining the independence of the voluntary sector, notes that it has a role to play that is locally determined and distinctive, should not be directed by and fulfils different needs from services provided by the state, and agrees that this is best enhanced by encouraging individual giving through the use of the tax system to support people who voluntarily give to charities."
It would be helpful if members, when taking interventions, remembered to address their remarks through the chair. Speeches will now be time-limited to four minutes, so eyes on the clock, please.
I will try to get the debate back on track. [Applause.] I welcome the speech by the Deputy Minister for Communities. We on the Liberal Democrat benches are happy to endorse the Scottish compact. I will address one reservation in a moment—it was alluded to by Lloyd Quinan in his remarks.
I welcome the independent review of charity law. The review, as announced by the minister, is very much in line with what the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has been calling for—it will be delighted. That is an important announcement and will be helpful to the voluntary sector.
I endorse the point that Lloyd Quinan made about the voluntary sector. The Scottish compact describes the principles underpinning the relationship between Government and the voluntary sector in Scotland—specifically the bodies fulfilling a service provision role in the social welfare sector. That is what the compact is about.
It is important that we remember that there is a large body of organisations outside the compact, particularly those involved in Scottish Environment LINK. I will not repeat the list that Lloyd gave the chamber. They see themselves as fundamentally independent of the Government; partnership with the Government is not central to their work. They are happy to be in partnership with the Executive for specific, targeted objectives, but most of their work is independent and some of it is aimed at changing Government policy. Some of those organisations might see it as their predominant role to monitor and criticise Government policy. I am sure that we welcome their continuing lobbying role. It is important to see the compact in that context of service providers in the social welfare sector.
I do not have much time, so I will move on to the key issue of funding. I had a letter from the minister today—it was timely—in response to issues that I raised in the previous debate. What a coincidence. Her reply was helpful and I am
grateful to her for that. She made the point that we want to create a more stable funding environment. I am sure that everyone in the chamber would endorse that, particularly as the voluntary sector in Scotland is more dependent on public sector funding than in the UK as a whole.
I know that the Executive's role is principally to fund national organisations. The Executive funds local projects only if they are particularly innovative or are pilot schemes. I raised with the minister the problem of LEAD—Linking Education and Disability—in Fife. That organisation has been active in Fife for 15 years and has done a huge amount for those with disabilities. This week, four glossy documents about social inclusion were published. I respect the contribution that those documents make—indeed, the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee was taking evidence on them in this very chamber earlier today. It is unfortunate, however, that in that context we find that an organisation as valuable as LEAD is closing down after 15 years' work. We are holding debates in this chamber on how to include people more, but at the same time we are closing down organisations in the field that have been doing such valuable work.
The minister said that she did not want to interfere in local authority decisions. I understand that, but she cannot avoid responsibility and nor can the Executive, because its budgeting has a direct impact on local authority budgets. I say this with some sensitivity, because I represent Perth and Kinross, which has been threatened with capping—"that crude mechanism", as the First Minister called it once, and I hope that he will do so again. When councils are threatened with capping for being only slightly over budget guidelines—Perth and Kinross was 1.1 per cent over—they look for savings in certain areas. The voluntary sector is often the first to be hit.
In Fife, the situation is even more dramatic. I have with me a copy of the joint motion drawn up by the Liberal Democrats and Labour—we are in partnership on this issue in Fife. Although the Liberal Democrats are in opposition to Labour in Fife, we produced a joint motion on local government funding, such is the pressure on local government funding. If a local authority such as Fife has had to find £47 million to fund pay awards without Government assistance over the past six years, certain services are bound to suffer. In this case, it is the voluntary sector and organisations such as LEAD.
We must bear it in mind that the Scottish Executive's budgeting has a direct impact on local authorities and on their ability to provide stable funding. We must look at that. I accept that the Minister for Communities and the deputy minister are committed to stable, three-year funding, but we cannot expect local authorities to provide stable, three-year funding when they are under such pressure.
I ask the member to wind up, please.
I will make one more point about funding, although there are others that I would like to make but cannot because the Liberal Democrat front-bench spokesmen get only a fraction of the time allocated to the Scottish National party and the Conservatives. I hope that that will be resolved shortly because it is completely unsatisfactory.
Get to the point, Mr Raffan.
I hope that attempts will be made to harness the resources of the private sector in such areas as mentoring. We should look to what is being done in the United States. In Manhattan, banks, law firms and advertising companies are being brought in to help excluded young people in the Bronx, Harlem and elsewhere. Those resources are not necessarily financial resources. They might be manpower—people who are prepared to contribute and who are prepared to give.
I welcome the Executive's commitment to the voluntary sector and to volunteering. That commitment is reflected in "The Scottish Compact". I welcome the formal acknowledgement that volunteers and volunteering make valuable contributions to the development of a more inclusive, participative and democratic society.
I will focus on two areas that are mentioned in the compact under the heading "Recognition". It is pertinent and important that the Executive has been clear in its commitment to recognise and support the sector's independence, as stated by the minister. That independence includes the right to comment on and to challenge Government policy.
As has been mentioned, some organisations might be wary of biting the hand that feeds them. I heard a comment on that issue from a voluntary organisation yesterday, but I was pleased to point it in the direction of the compact and to reassure it that it is perfectly acceptable for it to put its views forward, even if those views challenge Government policy. That organisation will be reassured by the minister's comments today.
It is also important that the Government is committed to supporting volunteering initiatives as a means of extending people's participation in their communities. I have a vested interest in one such initiative—volunteering in practice—that is
now nearing the end of its pilot status.
I was the volunteer manager for one of the two pilot projects that were designed to tap into the great potential that exists for extending voluntary activity into primary care. There is a long-standing tradition of volunteering in the national health service—valid contributions are made by many groups and individuals. However, it was felt that a more co-ordinated strategy for volunteering in the NHS was required. To that end, Volunteer Development Scotland has been developing such a strategy since 1997. It consulted health boards and has had assistance from local volunteering development agencies. NHS trusts are now required to develop volunteering policies by the end of next year, and those policies must be submitted to the Scottish Executive.
As part of the volunteering in health initiative it was recognised that there was not the same tradition of or opportunities for volunteering in primary care. What activity there was lacked co-ordination and focus. That initiative was instigated to identify the volunteering opportunities in general practices and to encourage and promote the engagement of volunteers. The aim was also to enhance the quality of care and support given to patients and carers and to produce good practice guidelines.
Examples of projects within that initiative include delivery of prescriptions to the elderly and the housebound, family support programmes, assistance with community transport, and support for people with medical conditions that require a change of lifestyle, such as diabetes type 2.
The benefits of such projects are unlimited. Opportunities are provided to improve the overall delivery of services and active citizenship is encouraged. Through them, people become more involved in their communities and inequality is tackled through empowerment and participation. Those projects complement the work that is currently undertaken by paid staff and professionals.
Pilot schemes in Culloden and Dundee are coming to an end; the results are being made available for any who are interested to see them. I hope that the Executive will take them on board and that it will take steps to encourage, support and promote the development of that type of volunteering activity in primary care. I would like to see such initiatives in my constituency and throughout Scotland.
A piece of joint research that follows on from that pilot has been presented recently by VDS and the Forth Valley GP research group. That is another good indication of how things can develop; it also shows the relatively low level of direct volunteering in primary care. Such volunteering must be encouraged.
Thank you. I was aware of that and I welcome Richard's pointing it out in the debate.
Although I have focused on two aspects of the compact, I welcome the document in its entirety and I recognise its potential as a starting point for the national strategy for volunteering in Scotland and for the further promotion and development of volunteering. I support the Executive's motion.
Before I was elected, I was employed in the voluntary sector. However, I have never worked for a charitable organisation and I would like to point out to the Conservative party that voluntary organisations and charities are not necessarily the same thing.
In the past 17 years, I have seen at first hand the impact of Government decisions on voluntary organisations. Many of those decisions have served to reduce the independence of the sector. Like others, I welcome the publication of "The Scottish Compact" as the beginning of the process of re-establishing the independence of the voluntary sector. It is very important that the compact recognises the right of the voluntary sector to comment on and challenge Government policy.
There has been a danger recently that the voluntary sector might go down the same road as local government and end up acting primarily as a vehicle for the delivery of Government policy. However, one of the strengths of the voluntary sector is that it provides an opportunity for many different approaches. It can accommodate organisations as diverse as Crew 2000 and Calton Athletic. Long may it continue to do so.
I am especially familiar with the voluntary housing movement, within which there is a comparable diversity. Housing associations and housing co-operatives range from large national associations that are dominated by establishment figures to local community organisations that are dominated by tenants. Each model has its place and it is important that, in our desire to achieve the objectives of Parliament or the Executive, we do not damage that diversity.
Make no mistake, however: even within the voluntary sector, the diversity of approaches creates tensions. At its best, it is a creative tension. Experience of work in the voluntary sector breeds respect for the contribution that even a small group of dedicated volunteers can achieve. If politicians try to colonise the sector, it will be at their peril. Effective partnership is much more
productive than command and control.
The compact is strong on partnership, which is to be welcomed. However, the reality is a long way from the rhetoric. In the distribution of resources, for example, too many initiatives are being launched, many of them based on wasteful competitive bidding. I am sure that many voluntary workers would echo that sentiment, none more so than those in the voluntary housing movement. The Executive should, in distributing resources, guard against practising a form of divide and conquer.
The recently reported fiasco of the 21st century halls programme is a case in point. In the third round of the initiative, 93 projects were submitted for consideration and only 16 awards were made. Under that programme, approximately £300,000 to £400,000 of speculative expenditure has been made by the voluntary sector, and much effort has been wasted.
Similarly, the new housing partnership programme saw housing associations waste substantial resources bidding for projects, only to see the money ring-fenced for local authority debt write-off. Before I am lambasted from across the chamber, I will make it clear that I am not criticising the decision to write off local authority debt. Indeed, it was my party's policy long before many others were able to understand the concept.
If housing associations and housing co-operatives had known how few resources were to be made available to support the work that they do very successfully, many of them would have avoided wasteful expenditure and effort.
It is the SNP's policy that there should be much more openness and transparency in the distribution of public resources. That applies to funding for the Arts Council and sportscotland and to the distribution of lottery funds as much as to the distribution of resources in the Scottish block.
We believe that that is one of the aspirations of the Scottish Parliament. The practice of using agencies such as Scottish Homes, the Scottish Arts Council and sportscotland to distribute resources can be valuable, and it should be kept under review.
To make the compact effective, the Executive must move on to implementation as quickly as possible. All departments and non-departmental public bodies must produce their plans for implementation. Those plans should be the focus for wide consultation in the voluntary sector. As noted by my colleague, Lloyd Quinan, we must not fragment the sector by creating a two-tier voluntary sector—those who have signed up to the Executive's initiative and those who have not. The SNP's amendment would go some way to ensuring that that does not happen, and I urge members to support it.
Volunteering is at the heart of civic society in Scotland, and the Parliament must value and respect the contribution of those who give their time freely for the benefit of others. To paraphrase: if Parliament agrees the compact, let us give those people the tools and let them get on with the job.
I welcome the minister's comments on the compact. I advise Mr Quinan that, as usual, I have rewritten my speech after hearing what he had to say. I want to say a wee bit about the compact.
The compact is an important document. I do not think that it is a straitjacket for the voluntary sector, and I do not think that it is only for the organisations that sign up to it. For many voluntary organisations, locally and nationally, it is a welcome starting point. It provides the opportunity to work in partnership, where appropriate. Like Linda Fabiani, I have worked for many years in the voluntary sector. There have been times when I have fallen out with funders, and I have worn the golden handcuffs, as we often call them.
On a point of information. On the final page of the compact, the name Cathy Peattie appears next to Councils for Voluntary Service, Scotland. Is that the same Cathy Peattie?
Yes.
Thank you.
I am an ex-member of Councils for Voluntary Service, Scotland.
Has Cathy Peattie declared an interest?
I did so the last time, but I am no longer associated with Councils for Voluntary Service, Scotland.
I have worked in community development, as have many people in voluntary organisations. It is in the nature of community development to question a host of things. Therefore, there will be times—quite rightly—when the voluntary sector will question the funders, whether local or national Government. The compact provides for that.
I am worried about the idea of creating an independent body to oversee the compact. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Volunteer Development Scotland and similar national bodies exist to do that. As an ex-worker in the voluntary sector who is, like many members, committed to that sector, I do not think that it is the Parliament's place to create anything for that sector. If the voluntary sector needs to be
overseen, it will do that itself.
I will now talk a wee bit about the review of charity law and the proposed forum. That is welcome. Voluntary sector organisations have been saying for some time that there should be a change. The law as it stands is ambiguous and can cause a great many problems for charities in Scotland.
I have been involved in Councils for Voluntary Service, Scotland, but I welcome the review. I advise Phil Gallie that Councils for Voluntary Service, Scotland and the SCVO welcome the review that is taking place. It is something for which they have been waiting for several years. The councils for voluntary service work locally and are involved in community development. They are involved at the chalk face, working with, and often managed by, local people. Any review of the councils for voluntary service will record that information. I welcome the review. I also welcome the commitment to ensure that there is a local volunteer development agency in every area, and that the councils for voluntary service are spread throughout Scotland.
It is important that we are having this debate. Members generally agree that the voluntary sector is a good thing, but it is like motherhood and apple pie: as somebody who was involved in the voluntary sector for a long time, I often found it hard to get politicians to talk about the sector. Sometimes politicians take the outdated view—as has Phil Gallie—that it is just a matter of throwing a wee bit money to those good people to do good things for poor people. However, the voluntary sector is vibrant and self-helped. It is run by local people and is active. It is something that the Scottish Parliament needs to support, not only for the good of Scotland, but for the democracy of Scotland.
I also speak as someone who has been involved in the voluntary sector as a director of an enterprise trust. Such trusts were set up as companies limited by guarantee, to promote local economic development.
Probably like everyone else who has been involved in the voluntary sector, I regard financial issues as being of prime importance. Like many other sectors in our society, the voluntary sector continually feels a financial squeeze.
I should like to make six constructive suggestions to the Scottish Executive, asking it to consider ways of improving the financial base of the voluntary sector. Although some of the suggestions relate to reserved matters, I hope that the Executive will consider, in the spirit in which the suggestions are offered, the possibility of making representations about them, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular.
An analysis of the £1.8 billion that the voluntary sector receives annually shows that by far the largest single contributor—making up nearly one third of the sector's income—is trading and commercial activity.
The voluntary sector in Scotland has suffered in two areas as a result of taxation policy. Its value added tax burden accounts for about £46 million a year—not an insignificant amount. I suggest that, in the run-up to the budget, we ask the chancellor to look at the possibility of providing more financial relief on value added tax for voluntary organisations.
The second area is corporation tax, which Phil Gallie mentioned briefly. Knock-on effects of the recent changes in corporation tax have been detrimental to the voluntary sector. That is not a party political point but a fact of life. Again, we should ask the chancellor whether he would be prepared to look again at those changes to see whether he can provide some relief for the voluntary sector.
Does Mr Neil agree that added motoring taxes have had a significant effect?
There is no doubt that the cost side has to be looked at as well as the income side. Today, I am concentrating on the income side, but as Phil knows, from time to time we agree.
The second major source of income is personal donations. The latest available figures, for the two- year period from 1996 to 1998, show a 22.4 per cent reduction in personal donations. I know that the chancellor has introduced some new incentives for personal donations to the voluntary sector, through gift aid and payroll giving. However, a major black hole has developed. At a time when disposable incomes are rising significantly, we need to examine why personal donations have gone down by nearly a quarter, and consider ways of reversing that trend.
Phil made some practical points about the way in which funds from the national lottery are distributed. I do not want to get into that, but I want to make the point that there is a case for devolving the two national lottery distribution funds that are relevant to the voluntary sector. Devolving that responsibility to this Parliament, through the Executive, would be worth considering, because in the allocation of resources within the lottery system, Scottish priorities might well be different from English, Welsh, Northern Irish or UK priorities. That would be a worthwhile reform, which would be beneficial to the voluntary sector in Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry. I always love to give way, but I cannot do so on this occasion as I do not have time.
The corporate sector accounts for 1 per cent—a miserable 1 per cent—of the voluntary sector's income. That is nowhere near good enough. In the past, we had the 1 per cent club, made up of companies that were prepared to give 1 per cent of their pre-tax profits to charity. We must consider ways of encouraging a much more substantial contribution from the corporate sector to the wider voluntary sector in Scotland.
I did not have time for everything, but I have given four constructive suggestions.
The Scottish compact
"is a quantum leap in the voluntary sector's relations with central government in Scotland . . . and a framework for a robust and frank relationship which will yield benefits for the whole Scottish community".
Those are not my words, nor are they the words of an over-zealous member of the Executive, although I concur completely with the sentiments. They are the words of Neil McIntosh, the convener of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations.
For too long, the efforts of the voluntary sector have lacked the recognition that they rightly deserve. The Scottish compact acknowledges the voluntary sector's valuable contribution. Volunteer Development Scotland has stated that
"the Compact reflects the Government's appreciation and understanding of the role of volunteers and of the voluntary sector in Scotland".
The Scottish compact is part of a range of measures that demonstrate the Executive's recognition of and commitment to the voluntary sector. The Executive is making commitments such as a guaranteed place for the voluntary sector on each of the social inclusion partnerships; £1 million to establish people's juries and panels; and £300,000 for the Scottish Civic Forum.
The final and most impressive evidence of the Executive's commitment to the voluntary sector is the establishment of the voluntary issues unit at the heart of the Executive. That development will ensure that a healthy dialogue exists between the Executive and the voluntary sector and that all policies that pass through the Executive are proofed for their impact on the sector.
There is some concern that the compact seeks to incorporate the voluntary sector. However, I believe that the compact makes explicit the right of—and indeed the necessity for—the voluntary sector in Scotland to remain independent. Furthermore, the document recognises the sector's important role in critically analysing Government policy and its impact on the sector.
I welcome the compact's commitment to promoting an understanding of the value of the voluntary sector to non-departmental public bodies such as local enterprise companies. The partnership approach, which is already being used in social inclusion partnership areas, should extend throughout Scotland. Complex problems such as social exclusion demand co-ordinated and sophisticated responses. It is vital that there is mutual understanding and respect between agencies such as Scottish Homes and LECs and the voluntary sector.
The councils for voluntary service have a major role to play in community capacity building and community development. They are also ideally placed to act as a linking agency between smaller community and voluntary organisations and nondepartmental public bodies.
My local CVS, the Monklands Association of Voluntary Services, provides support to a wide range of voluntary groups in Airdrie and Coatbridge. The provision of support to groups such as credit unions, food co-ops, and mothers and toddlers groups greatly enhances the lives of many people in my constituency.
I understand the voluntary sector's desire to examine the issue of charity law and charity tax reform, which are complex matters that touch on reserved powers. I welcome the minister's announcement to review those matters.
As the First Minister—the then Secretary of State of Scotland—points out in his foreword to the compact, the compact is not "an end in itself", but the basis for a strong working relationship between the Scottish Executive and the voluntary sector and a formal recognition of the voluntary sector's value to Scottish society. This is a significant first step, which should be welcomed by all members.
There are many worthwhile things in the compact with which I agree, but this is a debating chamber and I want to suggest an alternative that I know will not receive universal acclaim.
The Scottish Conservatives have a long- standing commitment to the voluntary sector—I think that we all agree about that. Through our amendment, we want to show that there is an alternative for the voluntary sector that avoids the pitfalls that we think are inherent in the Scottish
compact. The great danger of the compact is that it will undermine the independence and autonomy of the voluntary sector.
Labour's talk of partnership with the voluntary sector employs the sort of warm words it always uses to hide its true purpose. The sort of partnership that Labour envisages is unequal. We believe that the Executive is intent on controlling the sector to target its work on Government priorities; that the voluntary sector will be directed under contract rather than free to channel help where it believes it is most needed. That will, in turn, destroy the diversity and innovation in service provision that makes the voluntary sector's contribution valuable.
Anyone who does not believe that Labour intends to control the voluntary sector in that way needs only look at the Government's record so far. It is often difficult to work out the Government's purpose, because it appears to have no aim beyond the maintenance and exercise of power. That requires complete control over as many areas of society as possible. Labour has skilfully sold that control as partnership in its grand scheme of so-called national renewal, which is simply a smokescreen.
Labour's untrustworthiness is demonstrated by its action towards the voluntary sector since coming to power. While lavishing praise on the voluntary sector, Labour's uncharitable Chancellor of the Exchequer has been undermining voluntary organisations. Some of the figures have already been mentioned, but I think that they are worth repeating. His changes to advance corporation tax credits cost voluntary organisations and charities in Scotland around £40 million a year. His motoring taxes have hit people who work for voluntary organisations and use their own cars. By increasing the tax burden on each individual by the equivalent of £1,500 per annum, he has also reduced people's ability to contribute to charities and organisations.
Sadly, the voluntary sector probably feels that it has no choice but to accept what Labour is offering. The Conservatives' approach, however, would create new opportunities for the voluntary sector and allow voluntary organisations to keep their own separate identity. Unlike Gordon Brown, a Conservative Government would use the tax system to help and support people who give money to charities, rather than impose new tax burdens that harm the voluntary sector.
By providing support, we would protect the voluntary sector's distinctiveness and, more important, its freedom to act. If that independence is preserved, the voluntary sector's contribution to tackling many of Scotland's problems will be more valuable. Tackling those problems requires imaginative thinking and that is more likely to come from the diversity of the voluntary sector than from the rigidity of the bureaucratic mind.
We believe that the voluntary sector has a huge role to play in revitalising Scottish communities. That role would be lessened if its independence were reduced. Our policy of real devolution of power to individuals, families and communities would involve the voluntary sector in the essential regeneration of our local communities. Labour believes that social inclusion can be delivered from on high. It is wrong. Our approach of real devolution, combined with a truly autonomous voluntary sector, is the most effective way in which to address the problems of social exclusion. For that reason, we reject Labour's bogus partnership with the voluntary sector and urge voluntary organisations to accept our alternative approach.
I am having some trouble with request-to-speak lights going on and off. Does Kate MacLean want to speak?
I did not make a request to speak.
Your name is showing on my screen. If you do not want to speak, I shall call Cathie Craigie.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. The Executive and the Parliament have shown their commitment to the voluntary sector and recognised the important role that it can play in achieving a more socially inclusive society.
Many groups and organisations see the opportunities that the new Scottish Parliament has brought them and people are keen to develop new ways of doing things to change the stagnant policies and practices of the past and tackle head on the issues and problems that matter most to the people.
The value of the voluntary sector in Scotland— and the value of volunteering—is receiving the attention that it deserves in the new political atmosphere. It is clear that the voluntary sector is high on the political agenda. One of the differences between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster is the structure, importance and powers of our committees.
By setting up a Committee on Social Inclusion, Housing and the Voluntary Sector, the Scottish Parliament showed its commitment to placing the voluntary sector high on the political agenda. The committee demonstrates the links between the appreciation and promotion of the voluntary sector and the battle against social exclusion. The Scottish Executive and the Parliament's commitment was further shown last month when
the Parliament endorsed the Executive's motion to recognise the importance of the voluntary sector in our economic prosperity and in promoting social inclusion and encouraging active citizenship.
The Parliament supported the Executive's commitment to establish a stable infrastructure in which the voluntary sector can grow and flourish. The intention to work in partnership with the voluntary sector is welcomed by all. Labour's commitment to the voluntary sector is clear in the Scottish compact. The compact was developed through wide consultation with the voluntary sector and signifies—I hope—the start of a closer and long working relationship between the Government and the sector.
Consultation and dialogue between all parties is the best way for Scotland to gain even larger benefits from the voluntary sector. Through the compact, the Executive guarantees the right of independence for the sector, and that is the road that we should take. As I have often said, organisations should have the right to criticise and be involved in the policy debate, regardless of their source of funding. I am pleased to say that the compact delivers that right.
We can only benefit from the direct involvement of the experts, the people on the ground and the people who are delivering services daily. They should be involved in the development of policies. The Executive should maximise use of the sector's unique knowledge and position and its ability to connect with and influence the Executive's thinking.
The importance of teamwork, working as a national network, sharing knowledge and expertise and developing training opportunities for volunteers and organisations, must remain a central goal; that is dealt with in the compact. Dialogue and consultation with all involved is the best way in which to harness the value of the voluntary sector. The compact will have a positive and welcome effect on the organisations involved. It is a good start and, as a member of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, I look forward to working in partnership with the Executive, the voluntary sector and all involved, for the good of this country.
Today is an opportunity to applaud the work of the voluntary sector in Scotland—it has a crucial role to play in enriching the life of Scotland. Since being elected, I have met a large number of voluntary organisations of various kinds, from One Parent Families Dundee to the Tayside Recyclers. Their energy and enthusiasm—often in the face of a lack of resources—have impressed me. From my previous life as a community worker, I know how hard such organisations work, often for little praise in return.
The voluntary sector involves a huge number— estimated at around 1 million—of Scotland's citizens. They volunteer in a variety of ways and a variety of settings. The diversity of the voluntary sector is its strength, while its independence is a prerequisite to its success. The sector is involved in service provision, campaigning and advocacy. It is important that its campaigning and advocacy role is recognised; that is where some of our concerns lie.
During discussions with many voluntary organisations, I have found that, in general, the compact is supported, albeit that there is a certain amount of scepticism about whether it will be implemented. That aside, the view—crucially—is that an independent body should be set up to monitor the compact and its implementation. I have to tell Cathie Craigie that that is what voluntary organisations are calling for, and as someone who worked for the voluntary sector, I am sure that she will appreciate that its views should be taken on board.
The main thrust of the compact is aimed at service providers in the voluntary sector. Others in the sector receive an add-on mention. While we recognise the enormous benefits that service providers in the voluntary sector bring, we cannot forget organisations whose role is one of campaigning and advocacy. They can make life uncomfortable for Government bodies; their role is to criticise when necessary.
No one likes to be criticised, but concerns have been expressed by many such organisations that the compact will take away their independence, because it will bind them into the Government's agenda. I disagree with Phil Gallie—who, unfortunately, has left the chamber—that organisations should follow Government policy in order to receive funding. That is a dangerous argument. Governments and their policies come and go, but the voluntary sector continues to provide a service.
Scotland's environmental campaigning organisations have expressed concerns. The majority of them are unlikely to endorse the compact because they fear that it could become a binding document that isolates the organisations that do not sign up to it and takes away the independence of those that do. Those fears must be addressed.
Scottish Environment LINK is the liaison body for Scotland's main voluntary organisations that are interested in securing a sound future for Scotland's environment. Through the joint working
group, it participated in the discussions on the compact, but began to feel that the scope of the compact was intended more for service providers and was less relevant to bodies such as itself, which are involved in advocacy and campaigning. It said:
"Link bodies maintain the view that the Compact as it currently stands is not relevant to much of their work and therefore Link should not sign up".
The Scottish Wildlife Trust has also expressed concerns and has not signed up to the compact. It said that
"the Compact gives little or no reference to the principle of sustainability, which they are working towards . . . We feel it should be more responsive to environmental issues".
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has more than 70,000 members in Scotland, sees itself as fundamentally independent of the Government, and it has expressed major concerns.
We must avoid the development of a two-tier system in the Scottish voluntary sector: organisations that sign up to the compact and those that do not; those on the inside and those that are excluded. The SNP amendment provides a solution to that problem and would stop a two- tier system developing. It would allow organisations that do not sign up to the compact to retain a stake in the process and a communication channel with the Executive. An independent body will support the development and promotion of the entire voluntary sector and encourage co-operation between compact signatories, non- compact signatories and the Executive.
We believe that there should be an independent body to ensure that the compact works to the benefit of its members and those outside the compact. We want to ensure that the compact is inclusive and does not constrain the independence of voluntary organisations. We want the concerns of the environmental organisations and other campaigning organisations to be addressed. We welcome the compact and, with our amendment, want to see it in place as soon as possible.
On Friday, I spoke at an event at which the Tweeddale Volunteer Bureau became independent from the Tweeddale Association of Voluntary Organisations and reconstituted itself as Volunteer Development Tweeddale. TAVO's directory lists approximately 150 voluntary organisations. It is astonishing just how much voluntary organisations permeate our lives.
At that meeting, I said that I was hoping to speak in this debate today. I gave the assurance that volunteering was high on our agenda. I paid tribute to the role that women have played in this Parliament in changing that agenda and giving it a prominence that it would not have had at Westminster. I was pleased to do that, because I believe that the social fabric of our country depends on volunteers, many of whom are women. Our civic and social life would collapse if volunteering stopped tomorrow.
I want to come back to a point that other members have made. The compact emphasises the social welfare element of volunteering. Although that bothers me in some ways, I take it for what it is. That is where we are today.
We used to think of the health service as looking after us from cradle to grave, and of social welfare being part of that. As that idea comes under threat, the voluntary sector is filling the gaps and keeping it going. However, we must not take volunteers and their services for granted; a volunteer, by definition, is someone who can take their services away. I wish that the people who are conducting investigations into teachers' pay would recognise that.
We must ensure that partnerships feel fair—that the people who are involved in them believe that they are getting a fair deal. We must look after them. It would be a shame—Lloyd Quinan said this particularly clearly—if we did not fund organisations simply because they tended not to follow the Government or the local government line. Citizens advice bureaux can sometimes be a thorn in the flesh of local government, but we should not deny them the opportunity to carry out the great work that they do.
I was interested in what Alex Neil had to say about funding. I support his idea of increasing corporate funding and encouraging individual funding. Government and local government funding must also be increased. I worry that, in the compact, we are seeing only warm words and a pat on the back for the voluntary sector. As Linda Fabiani said, we must give the sector the tools to do the job. That includes more money from central Government. We may get it in the ways that Alex suggested—though it would be better coming from Gordon Brown—but we must get it from somewhere.
Like everybody else, I welcome the signing of the Scottish compact. I have some sympathy with the SNP's amendment, as I think that we need to address the problem of organisations that are not signed up. I would like to suggest that it is possible to sign them up in another way.
Within the compact are opportunities for review and discussion. Towards the end, it talks about
establishing
"a framework to monitor and evaluate its operations jointly with the sector".
That should be taken to mean the whole sector, not just those represented in the initial compact. It is perfectly possible to involve those organisations; it does not require the setting up of another quango. Indeed, I was under the impression that the Scottish National party was against the establishment of quangos.
It would be an independent body.
It would have to be funded somehow, so it would be a sort of quango, unless the member has specific proposals to the contrary.
Does Dr Simpson agree that a quango is a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation?
Yes.
We are talking about an autonomous non-governmental body.
Funded by?
Just a second. Members must conduct debate through the chair and not across the floor.
That was a rhetorical question.
I believe that there is a significant role here for this Parliament, which is not specifically mentioned in the compact. The parliamentary system, through its committees and the chamber, is the protection that those other voluntary organisations will have. At this stage, there is no need for us to set up an independent body. However, it will be necessary for us to keep this compact under scrutiny by the committees and this chamber. I am sure that we will do that.
There are one or two issues relating to the sector that I would like to mention. I was going to talk about primary care, but that has been dealt with very ably by my colleague Elaine Smith.
I have some concerns about the short-term funding that still goes on, particularly in local authority-funded funding. The move towards three- year funding, which will benefit the sector, and which both the Executive and the UK Government have embarked on, is of great importance but must be reflected at all levels because the consequence of short-term funding is that paid administrators in voluntary organisations spend a lot of time trying to get new funding every year, which is not an effective use of their time.
Short-term funding also means that many people in the sector are employed on short contracts. That has deleterious effects. The principle of avoiding short-term contracts has been recognised. Sam Galbraith, when examining the health service last year, before this Parliament started, indicated that the NHS should largely abolish short-term contracts because of their deleterious effect not only on the people on such contracts, but on the organisations they work for. The new system of funding will, I hope, help in that respect.
The Parliament and the Government have a role in scrutinising, benchmarking and encouraging local authorities in their compacts with voluntary organisations. I understand that they are being encouraged to set up similar compacts, which is excellent. There should be a much longer-term approach. I want to stress that, because it is more efficient.
Parliament has a role that is not spelt out in this document, but it is implied. It is the role that the SNP amendment refers to. We should return to consider that amendment only if that role does not succeed and we have real difficulties.
It was a remarkable tribute to this Parliament that Cardinal Winning addressed us earlier this afternoon. That reminds us of the huge amount of input into the voluntary sector that his and all the other Churches in Scotland accomplish.
I will be one of many who will, rather tediously, welcome this compact in principle. However, it is obvious that while there is a lot of good intent on structure and the bones and skeleton of what should be done, there is—as yet—no beef on the bone. We all know that fine words must be backed by real money, to aid the over-pressed voluntary sector.
Like many members, I have been involved—for more than 20 years—in a number of charities and voluntary bodies in Scotland and overseas. In the voluntary sector, people get a little tired of having their heads patted all the time when they know that the hands doing the patting should also be reaching into pockets to contribute more. In that case, I mean the pockets of the state.
I support monitoring of the good intentions in this compact. I am sure that in the long run the Scottish Executive will welcome that, because it will be seen to be transparent. The fears expressed by some SNP members and others are real. I have seen things happening that we would not have wished to happen in terms of inclusion. One body in Glasgow, which represents more than 300 voluntary groups—the Greater Easterhouse Council for Voluntary Organisations—protested vociferously that it did not wish to be absorbed into a new social inclusion partnership because it
wished to remain independent, but it was told a week in advance of the consultation period ending that it would be absorbed. I was a witness to that. Jackie Baillie was also on the platform. We do not want that sort of thing to happen again and monitoring could relieve minds on that score.
Various people have been excluded from the consultation. I am especially concerned about some of the bodies representing older people. Age Concern has rightly been consulted but Help the Aged has not.
Help the Aged may not be a direct provider of services, but it is most certainly a provider of innovative skills and ideas. We need to include everyone's good ideas and to foresee where the voluntary sector most needs this Parliament's help. I do not find that difficult to tell members, who will have guessed in advance that that help is most needed with senior citizens.
Fellow parliamentarians, the average life expectancy at the beginning of this century was only about 54 years; the century ends with a 20year increase. That is to the credit of medical science and many people, but the projection is that by 2032 there will have been a 59 per cent increase in the number of Scots aged over 75. That is a stunning projection, which I hope demonstrates the power of older people.
Already, we have more pensioners than school children in Scotland. That should not be a cause of doom and gloom—not at all. We can help pensioners to remain fit and active. The voluntary sector will say that it could hardly function without the aid of active senior citizens who do not wish only to be done unto but who wish to do and to help others.
We need to revolutionise our thinking—our elderly and outdated thinking—on older people. Older people I know happen to be tigers rather than pussycats. We want to hear their anger about the prejudices that they suffer, which must change as we move into the new millennium.
The other day, I attended a sale of work. A lady from Coatbridge baked nine enormous cakes and a huge boiling of tablet, to boot. She is aged 101.
Wind up, please.
We will not all see 101 and we will not all be that active, but we must channel the efforts, talents and abilities of older people. We must acknowledge them and we must acknowledge those who are frail. It is quite scandalous that we will soon commemorate armistice Sunday when we know that a drop in temperature—one point on the thermometer— means that 800 old people in Scotland will die, cold and in misery. They are the little brothers and sisters of that great ghost army.
I must ask you to wind up, please.
We can do better, but we must do so by aiding the voluntary sector with proper money.
First, I welcome the Scottish compact, as many members have done. In particular, I welcome Jackie Baillie's announcement of a review of charity law. I know that the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations called for such a review and will welcome it.
I wish to comment on some of the contributions made by earlier speakers. I recognise that there is widespread support for the compact and that the SNP amendment contains the party's genuine concerns. However, I appeal to the SNP to consider allowing the compact to come into place, which it will not do until March next year. We can see how it operates and listen to the voice of voluntary organisations, should they feel that an independent auditing body is required.
I believe that a distinction needs to be drawn between the role of campaigning environmental groups and that of the many voluntary organisations that have already signed up to the compact. I would be surprised if campaigning environmental groups signed up to any compact with Government. While that may happen in future, the role of those groups will be recognised and they will be listened to, irrespective of whether they sign up to the compact.
The compact promotes active citizenship, encourages pluralism and recognises the diversity of interests and opinions that exists in Scotland. I wish to draw upon my experience in local government. As a funder of voluntary organisations, I have been often in debate with organisations that have criticised the policies that I was trying to promote through the council and that the Government was trying to promote. However, those organisations remained the friends and partners of local government, and we recognised their role in trying to shape the development of services, both locally and nationally.
In particular, that approach was successful in the development of a local children's services plan. We brought together a range of organisations with different views about service changes and developments, including Barnado's and Who Cares Scotland, many of which wanted to pursue a faster agenda than the local authority did. They have remained strong partners and friends of local authorities and are still funded by
local authorities.
Other voluntary organisations that I have been involved in, which have been critical of Government policy but which are influencing that policy, are local Women's Aid organisations. In a recent debate, Jackie Baillie announced additional funding for Women's Aid. The contribution that such organisations have made in promoting and developing the agenda has resulted in changes in Government policy.
Linda Fabiani made a point about whether challenge funding was always appropriate. In my experience in West Lothian, we received challenge funding for new partnerships, which allowed us to get 300 new homes for rent with a far lower level of Government subsidy than has been possible for many years through Scottish Homes.
Do you accept that, because of the new housing partnership funding, an awful lot of money is wasted by many organisations with aspirations? Hundreds of thousands of pounds are wasted on consultancy fees. If the brief for the new housing partnerships had been a bit tighter and more clearly explained, many organisations would have realised the futility of spending all that money. I am not knocking the system, I am saying that it needs to be examined more carefully, to make it more effective all round.
I accept that some organisations that bid have used some of their resources in the process. However, from my experience in dealing with that process, I think that the benefits to the public sector in general outweigh the costs incurred by the organisations that bid.
Valid points have been made about the question of gift funding through the taxation system, and I hope that the Executive will develop and promote that throughout the public sector. I also hope that the public sector will encourage the private sector to follow suit.
Finally, I would like to respond to Alex Neil's point about the Chancellor of the Exchequer reexamining the funding of the voluntary sector. I understand that the chancellor launched a consultation process earlier this year. He may well come forward with proposals in due course.
I will try to be brief. Previous speakers have mentioned the hard work and dedication of the voluntary sector workers. I echo that. Without them, many people would be worse off. That applies to both the workers and the receivers. I would also like to pay tribute to the many children involved in the voluntary sector. I congratulate YouthLink Scotland on its excellent work.
I would like to share one of my experiences from many years ago, when my children were small. During the school holidays, it was a nightmare to find something for them to do. At that time, there were no activities for children. That is when I first got involved with the voluntary sector. I went to the citizens advice bureau and they told me where to go. Along with several other mothers, I set up a summer play scheme. We ran the play scheme very successfully for many years. I still meet some of the kids who took part—who now have kids of their own—and they say that they enjoyed the many activities that we provided for them. Children are our future and we must provide such facilities.
The point that I want to make is that we could not have done anything without the help of the local authorities. They provided us with money, free school lets, free use of playing fields and free janitorial time. I want the Executive to take that on board. Over the past three years, the Labour party has cut local government spending by about £2.4 billion. That is a fact, and I would like Jackie Baillie to take it on board. I want to ensure that local councils receive adequate funding to support local voluntary organisations.
Another worry is the advent of the private finance initiative in schools, about which the local press has been vocal. Will voluntary organisations still enjoy the use of schools and playing fields? I hope that the minister will answer that question.
We are coming to the end of a good debate, which has been characterised by people speaking with sincerity and conviction about their personal experiences, rather than by the usual political to-ing and fro-ing.
I want to draw members' attention to the example of the advocacy project in Glasgow, which I and a number of others visited recently. It is designed, like many other organisations of its kind, to help people who suffer from a disadvantage of one sort or another to increase their ability—to empower them—to deal with their affairs in society. The key problems that people at the project highlighted in my conversations with them were red tape and funding.
The project is funded by the local authority. It services a number of different parts of the Glasgow area. However, owing to the tight criteria for funding through social inclusion partnerships and the compartmentalisation of funding sources, it has considerable difficulty in responding flexibly to the needs that it faces.
The issue of empowerment is an important
aspect of the Scottish Executive's social inclusion partnership projects and lies behind the support that the voluntary sector receives. Apart from what empowerment does for groups and the people that they serve, it is an important bridge to work for people, who are assisted by voluntary groups or may become volunteers for them.
In discussing the compact, we must try to put flesh on the bones and deal with the problems of funding and red tape at local and national levels. Often such problems arise because of a lack of appreciation of the increasingly sophisticated society and circumstances in which voluntary groups operate. At local government level and at national level, there are people whose support for the voluntary sector is too paternalistic. We must, therefore, move towards a scenario in which we operate in a spirit of partnership rather than telling people what to do; in which funding is guaranteed and the time that people spend on raising funding is reduced to a minimum; and in which there is not only a general aspiration to consider the problem of red tape, but a detailed examination of the way in which bureaucratic restrictions inhibit the ability of the voluntary sector to do what it does.
The SNP's amendment makes a good point about the need to institutionalise the independence of the voluntary sector, but I do not think that the suggestion of an independent body is right. Such a body would be a quango with all the restrictions that go along with that. It would only put the problems at one remove. Dr Richard Simpson also had a good point when he said that it was the role of this Parliament and its committees to be the guarantors of the voluntary sector. We must all ensure that we encourage volunteering, that we allow the voluntary sector to come out of the cocoon and to develop to its potential and that the activities of the Executive, the Parliament and local government encourage the work of the voluntary sector.
In her opening speech, the Deputy Minister for Communities was complimentary about the voluntary sector, quite correctly, and I have no doubts as to her sincerity. How could she have been otherwise towards a body that makes a £1.8 billion contribution to the Scottish economy, provides 100,000 jobs and involves 300,000 people? All of us must bear that in mind and be careful in our dealings with the voluntary sector, considering the debt owed to them by the community overall. At the same time, we can derive a degree of pride from the fact that some 10 per cent of Scotland's adult population is involved in the voluntary sector. That is why I feel that we require to be sensitive in our dealings with them.
While there is much that can be regarded as common sense in "The Scottish Compact"—I am sure that we have not seen the last of such glossy and, no doubt, highly expensive documents that we have become very used to under this Administration—we have to examine the basic situation. In Yorkshire language, if it ain't broke, don't fix it: the voluntary sector is working in a highly satisfactory manner.
Of course, some things do have to be examined, and we fully support the commitment that the deputy minister gave that a commission on charity law is to be established. When it carries out its research it will find some interesting things, not least that some of the law relating to the administration of charities goes back more than 100 years.
Perhaps, in her summing-up, the Minister for Communities could outline the scope of the review that is to be carried out, and let us know whether she is satisfied with the existing procedure whereby the Lord Advocate investigates charities in cases where things have gone wrong. She might also take some time to consider what measures should be taken to deal with defunct charities whose trustees and beneficiaries are deceased. Clearly, there is a waste of resources there.
We appreciate that, perhaps for the first time, there is a formalisation of the need to have a degree of performance review for operating charities. The most obvious cause for concern must be that 100,000 people are employed in the charity sector, administering the effort of 300,000 mostly part-time volunteers. There has perhaps been a degree of duplication, and, I hope, when the review is carried out, it will have an effect.
Basically, we do not find the terms of "The Scottish Compact" acceptable. We feel that there is a degree of interference in the work of the charitable sector. Why do people become volunteers? They do so for many reasons. As Lloyd Quinan said, it is a diverse sector. The main reason is that they want to put something into society. They often wish to direct their input along a fairly restricted ambit. That being the case, we should let them do so. We should not in any way inhibit them from doing what they want to do. I strongly submit that when we formalise something, as has been done in the compact, we run that very risk.
I dealt earlier with sensitivity on that matter. It is important to realise that the voluntary sector feels itself becoming more and more put upon. The blame for that does not lie exclusively with the present Administration—I am pleased to acknowledge that—but we are, as a society, looking more and more to the voluntary sector to do things which would probably, some years ago,
have been the remit of local or central Government. We have to examine that situation and recognise that we are asking the voluntary sector to do things that we would, some time ago, have had to do ourselves. Therefore, we do not want to upset voluntary organisations in any way.
To accuse the Minister for Communities of control freakism or Big Brotherism would be over the top, and I would never wish to be that. However, it is important that the independence of the sector is recognised, thus enabling it to be more in touch with communities generally, and with what requires to be done.
Voluntary organisations require independence to achieve their aims and to react to local needs. Many members have spoken about various bodies, for example, in Dundee and Coatbridge—I confess I am intrigued by the idea of the centenarian baker from Coatbridge who had such input despite her advanced age. Those bodies know what is good for their communities; they do not require the Scottish Parliament or Westminster, or even the local authority, to tell them what is best.
"The Scottish Compact" contains the implied threat—I put it no more strongly than that—that funding will be arranged and diverted along certain channels. That must be a matter of some concern. The voluntary sector must, to some extent, put its own house in order. I dealt earlier with the need for performance review. There is definitely a need for consolidation among some organisations, a number of which do the same job. That point is dealt with in "The Scottish Compact".
The majority of people in voluntary sector organisations must be allowed the independence of movement, thought and activity that would enable them to perform the task to which they were appointed, democratically, by their membership set-up. That applies whether the organisation comprises three or four people in a rural village or is an inner-city drug charity.
My message to the Government is quite blunt: it should butt out of this sort of situation and allow the voluntary sector to carry on with what it has been doing for years with a great degree of success. The Government cannot involve itself too closely with such activities; to do so would have a stifling and inhibiting effect. In the end, we would all be the losers.
This is not the first time that the Conservative party has been out on a limb in Scotland. Comments made during this debate have reflected that.
This is the Parliament's third debate on the voluntary sector, following the general debate on the subject and Andrew Wilson's debate on Scottish Criminal Record Office checks. It is clear, therefore, that the Parliament has a commitment to the voluntary sector and to debating the issues that affect many hundreds of thousands of volunteers and many organisations.
The fact that this is our third such debate may also reflect the fact that, until May, the majority of people in the chamber pursued their political activities, technically, in a voluntary capacity. We know the saying that one volunteer is better than 10 pressed men. I am not suggesting that we should have conscription of MSPs, unless of course the minister expects to extend her citizens juries to a national level. Political volunteering may be an odd example, but I hope it will give us some understanding of the time and effort that many people put into voluntary activities and shoring up the fabric of our society. Most people would reflect that those people's contributions are far more constructive than being involved in politics.
In applauding the voluntary sector, I will take this opportunity to congratulate the Maggie's Centre appeal in Edinburgh, which provides security of funding to a magnificent service and centre near the Western general hospital. The centre provides a supportive, comfortable, non-clinical environment to which cancer sufferers can go for support and advice. The centre has no statutory funding and running costs of £200,000 a year, and the people of Edinburgh have worked together to raise £100,000 in less than two months. I also pay tribute to the role of the Edinburgh Evening News in promoting the appeal, and to the staff and volunteers who provide the service.
Maggie's Centre is one of our success stories. However, in the past month, I met a woman who was involved in a Parkinson's support group in West Lothian. I met her at the West Lothian volunteer exchange annual general meeting. That organisation goes by the name of LOVE, so we get a bit of passion in the voluntary sector. She told me about the difficulties that her organisation experienced with the local hospital, in trying to ensure that people who were diagnosed with Parkinson's were made aware of the local support group. Her group was also losing its treasurer and she was not sure for how much longer she could continue.
Both examples are from the health service and from a relatively close area, but they show a difference in experience and in ways of working between voluntary organisations and local hospitals. We must emphasise that the voluntary sector is not just one sector; it is diverse. I agree with Linda Fabiani that the command and control aspects of the compact will be detrimental. Bill Aitken should be aware that Big Sister is not
watching him.
I deliberately used health examples because, although 48 per cent of voluntary organisations operate in social care, 52 per cent do not. We have to recognise those organisations that operate in health, culture, economic and social development, law, advocacy, education and the environment. There is a danger that in the laudable drive to recognise the key role of voluntary organisations in delivering social provision we obscure the experiences of the wider voluntary sector.
However, I think that people who provide social care need stable statutory funding. Many organisations face the problem of getting stable funding. Tensions arise because, increasingly, voluntary organisations are asked to deliver the Scottish Executive's agenda in the form of social inclusion programmes. Increasingly, organisations have to compete with other providers, which sometimes creates a bidding war in which voluntary organisations that would otherwise be first-class partners are pitched against each other.
There is an urgent need for strategic co-ordinated community planning to allow us to stop the fat-cat consultants feeding off the poverty industry and replace it with partnership and co-operation between organisations that do not feel threatened by one another.
We cannot pretend that everything is rosy in the social policy garden. Suspicions abound between different bodies in the public and social sector. Turf territory disputes arising from a lack of secure funding do nothing to help good social policy in this country. In particular, non-departmental public bodies have suspicions about voluntary organisations. Although the compact exists, until the guidelines are in full operation, we may have good cause to be sceptical about its uptake.
Although the Executive can commit the civil servants at Victoria Quay to the principles in the compact, what about local enterprise companies, health boards and other organisations? I hope that when committees meet representatives of LECs and health authorities, members will ask them what they are doing to implement the compact. Too many pilot funding projects are set up that cannot continue because there is an ever- increasing emphasis on new initiatives. Let us have continued funding.
Alex Neil made some valuable points. On the corporate sector, not everything has to come in in cash. Many organisations provide good resources in staff time and experience.
Sandra White made a very valuable point. We are talking about the role of social inclusion and teachers, but if voluntary organisations cannot have access, the amount of resources and support that they can provide will be diminished.
I welcome the independent commission to review charity law. I will consider some of the issues that have been raised in the amendments. The Conservatives have to be reminded that there is more to the voluntary sector than charity. Bill Aitken's comments were perhaps complacent.
On our amendment, the remarks of Cathy Peattie and Richard Simpson were interesting. The compact document states that the Government undertakes to
"establish a framework to monitor and evaluate its operations".
There needs to be an independent body. I agree that the committees of this Parliament should address this issue, but, as I think Cathy Peattie said, if the voluntary sector wants it, there should be a framework. There is a difference between a quango and a tango. A tango is a totally autonomous non-governmental public body. The independent body should be a tango.
The jury is out on the compact. Our amendment is meant, constructively, to provide a mechanism whereby there can be continuing dialogue and development—perhaps to such a stage that non- signatories feel comfortable enough to sign up— and a positive relationship. There are concerns about how we work; for example, about the advertising of this debate. Many organisations would have liked to be here, but were not told about the debate. It is important that those organisations are involved whenever the Parliament discusses the voluntary sector. That is a test of how we go forward. The jury is still out. The clear message from the contributions today is that we must respect the independence of the third sector and ensure that it does not become part 1a—just part of the first sector.
Five weeks ago, when the eyes of Scotland were on the Hamilton by-election, this Parliament had its first chance to debate the voluntary sector—or, as it is more appropriately called, the third sector. I said then that we wanted to redefine the relationship between the third sector and the Government in Scotland. I want the third sector to be a leading social partner of equal significance and status to the Scottish Confederation of British Industry and the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
Five weeks ago, those aspirations attracted widespread mutterings of accord from all parts of the chamber, but actually the Executive was on probation. Members on all sides said that they were with us in spirit, but asked for the evidence that the Executive would put the third sector at the
heart of the new Scotland. Five weeks on, we have kept those promises.
The first challenge from the Parliament was that we should recognise the third sector at the heart of government and promote active citizenship. The new voluntary issues unit is now up and running. On active citizenship, there is the millennium volunteers programme, the giving age initiative and the determination that every local authority area in Scotland will have a volunteering development agency. Jackie Baillie is now fast- tracking the review of local councils for voluntary service. On 7 October, Jim Wallace announced a review group on SCRO checks.
The second challenge five weeks ago was to give the voluntary sector the capacity to influence policy. If we endorse the compact today, we take a major step forward in that and establish a new relationship between the Government and the Scottish voluntary sector.
The issue of independence has dominated today's debate. As Jackie said at the outset, the Executive has never, and should never, seek to co-opt the voluntary sector, but we cannot use fears of co-option to destroy the opportunity for dialogue. I know and I trust the Scottish voluntary sector. It is often at the sharp end of anti-poverty action in Scotland. Is anyone really suggesting that it cannot fight its corner without buckling to the Government? I am not frightened of the challenges that the sector will make and I will not shirk my responsibility to engage in the debate face to face. That is called democracy.
That is why the SNP's amendment is old- fashioned. It is out of touch with the way in which we should do things in the new Scotland.
Give way.
No, Lloyd—you have had your chance.
Why offer Scottish voluntary organisations yet another independent body when what they really want after 300 years without a Parliament is to be here at the table, influencing us? What was the point of fighting to have the Parliament if we just take the debate elsewhere?
Old Scotland was characterised by quango-toquango discussions. Lloyd opened the debate with the example of the very real challenges in the drugs field about which organisations we should support and how. That is a tough issue, but it is better that Susan Deacon, Angus MacKay and I are responsible to the Parliament for the decisions that we take than that a quango should make those decisions. I say to the SNP, "Have a little faith." Now that we have got Scotland's Parliament, let us not marginalise ourselves by creating another quango. If the proposed quango was not about funding decisions but about development work, there would be a real risk of insult to SCVO, VDS and CVS, which speak for the sector—I am happy to let them do so.
No, I must go on.
The minister is not giving way.
Let me make it quite clear: SCVO, VDS and CVS do valuable development work. I see no demand for creating another quango for further development work.
The third challenge that the Parliament posed to the Executive five weeks ago was for funding stability. We have made clear our commitment to encourage three-year core funding as the norm, to support core funding costs and to dialogue with local government about its responsibilities in this area. I say to Sandra White that this year local government is benefiting from the best settlement for seven years. If local government is not meeting its responsibilities, people can take that up authority by authority. Above all—this addresses the point that Keith Raffan and Fiona Hyslop made—we need new exit strategies that avoid the pain of the past. That is on our agenda.
The issue of funding takes me to Phil Gallie's amendment. It is politically quirky, given his personal political journey, for him to suggest that we should trespass into the reserved areas. The Labour party is not inclined to follow. The marriage of convenience between Phil Gallie and Alex Neil in telling Westminster what to do misses the point of the opportunity that we have in Scotland.
The real challenge for the third sector, as for this Parliament, is to modernise our relationships. In the past five weeks, the Executive has done more than the Parliament asked of us. This Executive is determined not just to talk about modernising Scotland, but to deliver that modernisation. In the past five weeks, we have taken three further steps to guarantee that the third sector is at the heart of the new Scotland and at the heart of modernising our nation.
First, Jackie announced today our plans to set up an independent review on the reform of Scottish charity law. That is a signal of our willingness to look beyond the boundaries of government when it is right to do so. That reform will be a major step forward, which will be widely welcomed in this chamber and beyond. In answer to Bill Aitken's point, we will shortly come back to the chamber with the terms of reference.
Secondly, as some of you know, three weeks ago I met Bill Gates of Microsoft to discuss digital
inclusion initiatives. I am excited by the new plans that are being developed jointly by Microsoft in Scotland, British Telecommunications plc and SCVO to wire up the voluntary sector in Scotland. The Scottish voluntary sector has become communications savvy on tight budgets, but we need to connect the entire sector and create a truly national network linking 10,000 desks across Scotland. An e-commerce platform will allow Scottish social economy organisations to play their part in the electronic age. Continuing on the digital theme, Jackie and I will meet Scottish broadcasters later this week to discuss how they can support the voluntary sector.
My third point, which is a major one, will I hope address Alex Neil's point about the role of the Scottish corporate sector and its responsibility in supporting the social economy. Today I am announcing our plans to tackle the big, fundamental challenge: how we modernise funding for the third sector to reflect the aspirations that the Parliament has for the sector. We all know that the sector has unrealised potential and we must match its determination to build a new Scotland. The Scottish Executive today announces its support for plans to develop a new, multi-million pound loan fund to finance community projects across Scotland.
On a point of order.
Let me finish, then I will take a point of order.
Oh.
Hold on, Minister.
Sorry. Alex—
Order. It is for me to decide whether to take a point of order.
At the beginning of this meeting, a colleague of mine raised a point of order about a press release that was issued at 9.30 am, announcing what the minister is now, hours later, announcing to the Parliament.
I have not seen that. Please continue, minister.
The planned Scottish community investment fund will be the first national fund of its kind. It will aim to bring in £10 million from banks and from a range of private and public sector sources. It will give a major boost to community-based projects by making it easier for them to gain access to funding. It will provide working capital, the lack of which has too often stopped great projects dead in their tracks. The fund—which we hope will be operational next year—will help community-based initiatives such as food co-operatives, furniture recycling projects, child care schemes, fuel-poverty initiatives and training and employment schemes.
Jackie Baillie and I visited the Bank of Scotland—the illustrious headquarters of Scottish banking—to discuss our plans. At lunch time, we visited the community café in Granton to see a project of the sort that the fund might support. The Scottish Executive is talking to leading bankers and community organisations about how to bring US-style non-profit funding flexibility. That is another example of Scotland leading Britain. It is the way of the future—Scotland's private sector, public sector and voluntary sector working together.
The new Parliament and the new Executive are acting as catalysts for change throughout Scotland. They are then standing back to let people in Scotland take the ideas forward. The new fund will help Scottish communities to help themselves. It will support the practical measures to build bridges to get people out of poverty throughout Scotland.
We know that, too often, community organisations have faced problems in accessing capital. We will help to fix that by using what will be created by the Executive in conjunction with the private sector. That is an exciting proposal and I hope that it will attract widespread support. I encourage all areas of Scottish life to contribute to it.
Let me finish by saying that we must remember why we have these discussions—it is about trying to involve all areas of Scotland's life in making life better for the people of Scotland. One in two Scots give of their time for voluntary activities; we are going to help them to achieve more for their fellow Scots and for their communities. I urge members to support the motion and to reject the amendments.