Volunteering
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4985, in the name of Johann Lamont, on volunteering.
Labour has chosen to use its time to debate volunteering and the voluntary sector both in recognition of their importance and because it is concerned about the lack of opportunities for consideration and scrutiny of the Scottish Government's approach that the Government has afforded. The Scottish Government has promoted a wide range of non-debates in the chamber, but I cannot remember when these particular issues were last debated.
We want to give voice to concerns that are being reported to us by people throughout Scotland who are too afraid to speak up or speak out on their own behalf. Indeed, I have been struck by the significant number of briefings that we have received as a result of this debate. I thank everyone who provided a briefing; it is a measure of the subject's importance that they have been submitted.
It is right to recognise and celebrate the voluntary sector's role and we salute the volunteers who make a real difference to people who are very often the most isolated and vulnerable in our communities. We know that volunteers can identify need, help to shape services and reach out into the parts of our communities where the state cannot go. Volunteers such as those who work for Home-Start in my constituency can support and be trusted by vulnerable families who might fear more formal interventions by social work or health staff. We know that volunteers make a massive social and economic contribution and that their influence on community life and cohesion is beyond measure. We know, too, that volunteering enriches the lives of volunteers, both young and old; indeed, we have seen how significant the support for volunteering among older people has been.
Warm words, however, will sustain neither volunteers nor the voluntary sector and, like many others, I remain concerned that in its approach the SNP has been typically high on rhetoric but weak on delivery, with a separation between what it says it cares about and what it provides resources for. I am also struck by the gap between ministers' approach, which borders on the complacent, and the issues that have been raised at a local level, including funding cuts, fears for the future and increased concern about the conditions of those who work with the voluntary sector. In the time available, I will try to highlight some of those concerns.
First—and I do not say this lightly—I have been struck by the extent to which those involved have suggested that there is an atmosphere in which it is difficult for them to air concerns. I hope that we all believe in and celebrate the independence of the voluntary sector, but the threat of the withdrawal of funding if critical voices are raised seems all too real. That cannot be acceptable, but it has been reflected in the debate on the future of the councils for voluntary service network and the development of local interfaces. Instead of following the principle of voluntary collaboration, we seem to be driving towards a forced measure, with funding being used to create compliance. As I said, that is entirely unacceptable.
Secondly, there is concern that the Scottish Government seems to be of the view that the development of volunteering opportunities does not require resources. The national volunteering strategy seems to have come to an end, and the single outcome agreements say nothing about the need for such strategies to be developed at a local level.
Thirdly, not that long ago, Unite, Unison and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations came together to highlight to the Parliament the crisis in the voluntary sector. Who can forget the image of the hearse, which captured the fear of the sector's destruction? Well, SNP back benchers will have forgotten it, because they did not have the courage to turn up and speak to the people who were raising these concerns.
There is also grave concern at the Scottish Government's lack of understanding of the powerful role that volunteering can play in tackling disadvantage, and we need to be proactive in encouraging such activity in our most disadvantaged communities. After all, volunteering can improve skills, build confidence and form an important bulwark against the consequences of economic recession. We need the Scottish Government to act, especially when we are faced with two contrasting sets of figures. First, 18 per cent of adults in deprived communities volunteer, while the figure for Scotland is 33 per cent; secondly—and in stark contrast to that—the figure for young people not in education, employment or training is 11 per cent for the whole of Scotland, but 25 per cent in our 15 per cent most deprived communities. The Scottish Government must find a way of intervening to ensure that our poorest communities, which would benefit most from the skills that volunteering can bring, are afforded such opportunities.
Does the member not agree that one of the difficulties that the voluntary sector is facing is the move to compel people who do not want to go into employment or training to accept a place in the sector? Surely the whole ethos of volunteering is that it should be voluntary. Does the member agree that compulsion in this matter is very wrong and will she condemn the United Kingdom Government for trying to force through such a measure?
I regret the fact that Tricia Marwick wishes to attack the United Kingdom Government, rather than join us in contemplating challenges in our local communities. Young people in poor communities could be afforded the opportunity to volunteer, which would address the fact that disproportionate numbers of them have been hit by the recession. The Scottish Government's answer to that situation is to end funding for ProjectScotland, a body that has a focus on reaching out to young people for whom it is more difficult to access volunteering opportunities and who would benefit disproportionately from them. There are examples of that in my community and, I am sure, throughout Scotland.
Despite that, the Scottish Government is ending ProjectScotland's funding. The Government says that it is a matter of cost, but the reality is that 87 per cent of the money from the public purse that is used to support volunteering opportunities through ProjectScotland goes directly into the pockets of the young volunteers and, from those young people, out into the hard-pressed communities in which they live. We know that 40 per cent of ProjectScotland's volunteers come from the 20 per cent most deprived communities. At a time of economic recession, it is bizarre for the Scottish Government to make that decision, which shows a lack of understanding of the recession's disproportionate impact on poor communities and individuals.
It is time for the Scottish Government to confront the consequences of its decisions. Its budget has increased in real terms by £600 million, but it is devolving responsibility to local level, with a reduced budget. As a consequence, there are cuts in local government budgets. Local government's capacity to find resources is restricted because of the impact of the council tax freeze. The Scottish Government must accept that the funding problems that voluntary sector organisations and local volunteers are experiencing are its responsibility.
The Scottish Government should take a lesson from volunteers and the volunteering spirit. It should take responsibility and recognise that warm words mean nothing without action to make the commitment real. Having created huge problems for voluntary organisations and volunteering, the minister adds insult to injury by walking by on the other side. I urge him to reconsider his position on ProjectScotland and to listen to and engage honestly with all those in the voluntary sector who wish to volunteer but who tell us that there are significant problems at local level. That will give us confidence that volunteers and the voluntary sector can survive and thrive again.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises and celebrates the role of the voluntary sector and volunteers across Scotland in supporting individuals, families and communities and in shaping and delivering services locally; notes the excellent work of volunteering organisations in encouraging volunteering through offering training and volunteering placements and particularly in reaching out to those who might not otherwise have the chance to volunteer; agrees, given the opportunity that volunteering provides to develop skills and build confidence, that, in this economic recession, volunteering organisations should be given adequate resources to allow them to do that important work, and further agrees that innovative organisations that create structured volunteering placements for young people, such as ProjectScotland, should be recognised and supported by the Scottish Government.
It is highly appropriate that we should debate the voluntary sector in the context of the challenges facing Scotland. The Liberal Democrat amendment focuses on the situation of young people in the tsunami that has been wrought by the economic and financial crisis. Young people are our future and our greatest pool of talent and potential. In the 1980s and 1990s, we saw the damage that can be done to the hopes and ambitions of a whole generation for whom there are no jobs and little opportunity. Now, again, the generation coming out of school, college and university, full of possibility and desperate to make their way in the world, find no jobs available to them and vastly narrowed opportunities from those that were available only a year or two ago. Almost one in six under-25s is out of work, with youth unemployment in September the highest since records began. Those young people are at risk of becoming another lost generation and, with every day that passes, their hopes fade a little more. The Parliament and the country will pay a heavy price if we cannot meet the threat as a society.
The challenge is also an opportunity, because the underused talent of our young people is a major resource of enthusiasm, fresh air, manpower and, I have to say in Johann Lamont's presence, womanpower for voluntary sector organisations. Many organisations routinely draw in young people as volunteers, but much more can be done through what I describe as interns or placements—young people who come not for an evening, but on a daily basis for months or longer. They can be trained to fulfil a role in the organisation, expand its capacity and, in the process, find fulfilment in doing something worth while for the community and build their self-confidence.
That was the role and inspiration that was taken up by ProjectScotland. I say to the minister that it should be a significant embarrassment for the Government that it withdrew funding from ProjectScotland without proper examination of its role or potential and at the very time when its contribution was most needed. ProjectScotland is not the only model. We have the Scottish higher education employability network—SHEEN—student placements project and various other projects. However, one of ProjectScotland's undersung contributions was to provide structured resources to build the capacity of the organisations in which its volunteers were placed. For example, the Scouts at their Fordell Firs headquarters and outdoor centre took on ProjectScotland volunteers, who added enormously to the staff base, to say nothing of the opportunities in youth work that were opened up to those young people.
The voluntary sector is more needed than ever during times of hardship. The citizens advice movement makes a massive contribution in most parts of Scotland. It was funded by the previous Scottish Government specifically to carry out debt advice work that arises from legislation that we introduced. That funding comes to an end shortly, but it must be extended and not lost by becoming merely a part of the local government settlement. Citizens Advice Scotland receives significant funding from the UK Government because of its role in financial and welfare benefits advice. That presents a major opportunity for gearing up with the support of local authorities and the Scottish Government. I am not so interested in the mechanics but, as Johann Lamont rightly said, the Scottish Government has a responsibility to ensure that the national advice service is funded effectively to meet the current expanded needs.
What applies to the citizens advice bureaux applies to many other voluntary sector organisations that can and need to play not only their current role, but an enhanced role in providing flexible services with a human face. Those services are often of a kind that cannot be supplied by the statutory services. I ask the minister to tell the Parliament what weapons he will use to ensure that those organisations can access properly structured and sustained funding that builds their capacity in these difficult times. I genuinely welcome the recent announcement of a resilience fund of £1.7 million but, as a deputy minister in the previous Government—a mere minion—I put more than that into the youth work strategy alone. Modest crisis funding is no substitute for sustained and structured support of the sector.
In April last year, Parliament debated the voluntary sector, which was perhaps the most recent time that the issue was debated in the round. At my instigation, we passed an amendment that called on the Scottish Government to review the operation of the concordat with local government to provide more stable funding for the voluntary sector and to revitalise the local government compacts with the sector. We have heard little if anything about that recently. Not for the first time, the Government has ignored the will of Parliament. The interests of the voluntary sector are similarly ignored in outcome agreements. Meanwhile, the fairer Scotland fund has followed other funding in being rolled up into the local government settlement. What a contrast that is with the substantial package of voluntary sector support and reforms under the previous Government. That approach genuinely expanded the sector's capacity, supported national infrastructure organisations and tried to deal with the admittedly difficult task of the sector's relationship with local government and other funding bodies.
I know that the minister's expertise is in enterprise, rather more than in the voluntary sector, but I hope that he will tell us what policy levers he retains to ensure that stable and sufficient funds flow into the voluntary sector. We have an opportunity to turn difficulty into hope, instead of aspiration into ashes. We must not again witness the bleakness of another lost generation of young people. The Scottish Government has a crucial part to play in the discussion, debate and, I hope, action.
I move amendment S3M-4985.1, to insert at end:
"considers that young people are a huge pool of untapped talent and potential who are at risk of becoming a lost generation as a result of the current economic downturn; notes that engaging young people in the voluntary sector would provide a valuable resource for the organisations concerned; recognises the pressures put on the voluntary sector by the local government concordat and single outcome agreements, as well as local authorities' tight financial settlement, and believes that, with proper, structured and sustainable funding from central and local government, the current economic downturn presents an opportunity for a strong and active voluntary sector to play an enhanced role in the delivery of frontline services."
The debate is timely and is on a subject about which all members are passionate, and rightly so, because that is the only seemly response to the passion, focus and commitment of volunteers throughout Scotland. Unbidden, they work with others to benefit their community. They are predisposed to altruism and they understand the need for their services, the good that they do, the satisfaction that volunteering can produce and its potential to produce a chain reaction of positive results. They are vital to the success of Scotland; indeed, in many ways, they are Scotland—they are totally representative of the country, with some estimates suggesting that more than a million people take part in volunteering activities. Many of them will not see themselves as volunteers, although they are active in what they do, whereas others see themselves very much as volunteers with clearly focused volunteering organisations.
We will accept and support the Labour motion, recognising that Johann Lamont has sought to engage positively and effectively on the issue and that her strategic direction as a minister was similar to the cohesive approach that we seek to engender, albeit that her rhetoric today has perhaps been skewed by partisan spin. It does not describe the new reality and the new beginning that is taking place, which is the opportunity for the voluntary sector to be at the heart of the community planning partnership decision-making process and to make real progress.
Does the minister regard it as cohesion when he has outsourced to local authorities £350,000 of support for the CVS senior volunteers programme and failed to agree to the transitional funding that was demanded in the debate last year, with the result that only four as opposed to nine development officers now support an increasing number of people who want to volunteer? The programme is under massive threat from his lack of cohesion.
I note the member's scaremongering tone. I believe that we are seeing a new beginning that brings people together to work cohesively. We are seeing that even in the case of ProjectScotland, which is evolving with Government support to aid transition of £1.4 million in 2008-09, which has helped the project to get European Union match funding. It made a successful application to the third sector enterprise fund that has enabled it to recruit a business development manager to assist in its evolutionary process. It is increasingly clear that ProjectScotland can do more now that it is in the fold as a mainstream service provider. It is in close talks with Skills Development Scotland about creating a pilot study and it is building a positive network of mentors throughout the country.
We will reject the Liberal Democrat amendment.
Just before the minister leaves the subject of ProjectScotland, does he accept that a great many voluntary groups throughout the country do excellent work that has relied on ProjectScotland volunteers and that the consequence of the cut in funding by his Administration is that the work of many of those groups has been seriously hampered? Will he reconsider the level of Government support for ProjectScotland?
Considering the expense of the ProjectScotland model, I am surprised and disappointed by that intervention from a party that prides itself on efficiency and effectiveness.
I am also disappointed that, in their amendment, the Liberal Democrats see bleak negativity in the local government concordat and single outcome agreements. That is an affront to the many decent people who are pulling together to take advantage of already increased funding and the new levels of collaboration that have been achieved and can be further improved. However, we can build on Robert Brown's final comment about difficulty turning into hope.
The atmosphere of blame, negativity and pessimism among Opposition members is not what I recognise out there in the field. Perhaps that atmosphere is designed to trigger defensiveness, fear and disconnection, but it is not what we are about. We reject that, as do the millions of volunteers who choose to connect and find better ways of doing so. In response to Johann Lamont at question time last week, I made a commitment to do that, and I will honour that commitment. We will make connections. We will happily try to broker arrangements and ensure better outcomes, which is very much what we have been doing of late.
In Glasgow last week, the Scottish Government ran a seminar under Chatham house rules, bringing together 35 key figures from throughout Scotland to think through what is needed to support active communities. That group tabled a wide and rich variety of ideas. It will now produce a framework to trigger a further conversation in Scotland about what needs to be done by whom and what resource will be needed. These are early days, but we feel that we are working on the right track and we are listening.
The key feature of this morning's debate is the huge range of ideas, which will be melded with our approach. Volunteering has no boundaries; motivated people will constantly find new ways of helping others. It is our job through the interfaces, CPPs and single outcome agreements to ensure that that happens. More and more volunteers will come forward. We are now seeing that our work with Volunteer Development Scotland, in which we are investing £11.5 million in the current period, is having a big effect. That represents only 5 per cent of volunteers, so many more volunteers will come forward.
I apologise to Johann Lamont for missing the opening remarks of her speech.
This is a tricky speech to make. After all, this week sees the climax of the UK party conference season and long-standing tradition dictates our conduct. Last week, Labour said lots of nasty things about the Conservatives; this week, we in turn illustrate dramatically all that is wrong with the failing Labour Government. A fortnight ago, we both shared a universally arrived at national judgment on the Liberal Democrats, but the less said about them the better. On that sentiment, even though I appreciated Robert Brown's speech this morning, I find the Liberal Democrat amendment unhelpful, which will contribute to the outcome at decision time.
However, the motion requires us to rise above the demands of the season, because it touches directly on an unjust sleight of policy executed by this minority Government against ProjectScotland and the wishes of all the other parties in the Parliament. No great issue of principle was at stake; no great financial burden was relieved for the nation. What was achieved, with all the appearance of first ministerial spite, was the emasculation of an organisation that was created by the current incumbent's predecessor, seemingly principally for that reason.
I will return to ProjectScotland later, for the motion invites us to recognise and celebrate the extraordinary culture of volunteering bequeathed by generations of Scots past and embedded in the daily practice of modern Scotland. Some 45,000 structured voluntary organisations, managing £9 billion of assets and marshalling 1.3 million adult volunteers from every sector of Scottish life, work to make Scotland and the wider world a better place. That is a characteristic of modern Scotland that I do not doubt every member of the Parliament welcomes, celebrates and is regularly inspired by.
We have probably all volunteered at some point; it can be an important balance in life. My family volunteers and there is nothing remarkable about it. Like many younger people at school, my sons have come to volunteering through the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme. My wife volunteers with the lifeboats—on the fundraising side of things, I hasten to add. I mention that in passing because all who volunteer would wish the debate to acknowledge the one general irritation felt by all, which is regulation, however well intentioned, whose consequence is to obstruct the work of volunteers and demoralise many who volunteer. We need to deal with that problem if volunteering is not to suffer, but it is the stuff of a different debate than ours today.
Volunteering will prosper irrespective of the fortunes of ProjectScotland. However, what is at stake is the potential loss of an organisation that affords access to volunteering to sections of our young people who are regularly bypassed. As I observed when we debated ProjectScotland nearly two years ago, ProjectScotland addresses volunteering access inequality, which makes the actions of a Government pledged to address inequality all the more bewildering. In the two years since that debate, has something else turned up? Rather like what happened with the Scottish Futures Trust, we were invited back in 2007 to swoon before freshly invigorated ministers breathily promising something better. But something better is there not. To be fair to the minister, he has at least been emollient, at least until a moment ago when, in one breath, he praised ProjectScotland and, in the next, he attacked Murdo Fraser for asking him to back up that praise with practical action.
The First Minister has been less emollient. On 24 June at First Minister's questions, oblivious to the 50 or so ProjectScotland volunteer champions watching from the public gallery, he descended into a diatribe of ill-informed and ill-judged abuse of ProjectScotland, its volunteer organisers and volunteer successes. At a certificate award ceremony afterwards, there was a heady mix of bewilderment and fury from a new generation of Scots—and model Scots at that—receiving awards for the sheer excellence of their commitment to volunteering on behalf of their country.
Although many voluntary organisations seek out young people in search of life-changing opportunities, and the Government supports many of them in many ways, I remain genuinely perplexed by its indifference to the future of ProjectScotland, which is an organisation supported not just by several of its back benchers—prior to being told to think otherwise by their front-bench peers—but by an extraordinary range of not-for-profit organisations that address volunteering access inequalities in every region and community of Scotland.
Those who emerge through organisations such as ProjectScotland are just the sort of young people whom responsible businesses long to recruit. Businesses recognise that they have journeyed through ProjectScotland from potentially difficult circumstances. Responsible business wants to play its part in giving those young people, who have shown such courage, application and resolve, a permanent and hopeful future. Eight out of 10 progress to a positive outcome. Some 40 per cent of those young people come from the 20 per cent most deprived areas in Scotland. Through ProjectScotland, more than 3,000 young people have contributed more than 2.2 million hours of new voluntary work, saved the state some £3.16 million in welfare benefits and, through their talent, increased confidence and application, significantly increased the capacity and quality of the service that is provided by not-for-profit organisations. Never has volunteering had a more important role to play. Harnessed successfully, volunteering will give hope, life skills and work to many and will prepare them for the employment opportunities that will surely come. We should learn from past experience, not repeat it.
Structured volunteering placements of the kind offered to young people through innovative organisations such as ProjectScotland deserve recognition and practical support from the Government in these times. Today we set aside, however reluctantly, the tribal rites of this crucial party conference season to join Labour by supporting the motion in Johann Lamont's name. It is for the Scottish Government to do likewise, not just with warm words but with practical action.
The voluntary sector plays an extremely important part in the day-to-day lives of tens of thousands of our constituents, so I am particularly pleased that the motion makes specific mention of ProjectScotland, which was launched by Jack McConnell in the spring of 2005 and was based on the AmeriCorps model, which was pioneered by President Clinton in the 1990s. Members will be aware of my long-standing support for ProjectScotland. I thank all those members who signed my two motions on the charity during this diet of Parliament.
Since its inception, ProjectScotland has set about transforming and redefining the image of youth volunteering by creating effective partnerships with hundreds of public and voluntary sector organisations, delivering more than 3,000 placements and facilitating more than 2.2 million hours of volunteering.
Why has ProjectScotland been so successful? Put simply, it delivers what young people want: choice, support and the chance of a better future. It is unique in that its participants receive a subsistence allowance that allows them to take up a variety of opportunities and a wide range of placements. To date, more than 3,000 young people have taken part.
However, change is not confined to the participants. ProjectScotland delivers a unique double benefit: as volunteers change their lives, they help to improve the lives of those around them by increasing the capacity of voluntary sector partners and making a difference to the communities that they serve. ProjectScotland has changed the lives of tens of thousands of Scots.
Unhappily, in December 2007, the Scottish Government decided to withdraw the funding for ProjectScotland—a decision that has resulted in a drastic reduction in the number of placements made available to our young people and, by extension, a cut in the capacity of partner organisations.
In 2007-08, ProjectScotland provided 1,370 placements. Following the Government's withdrawal of support, that number fell during 2008-09 to 426. Placements were halved in Glasgow and South Ayrshire, cut by more than two thirds in Fife and Perth and Kinross and cut by almost 85 per cent here in Edinburgh. Those statistics make grim reading against the backdrop of the current economic climate.
One can seldom open a newspaper without reading another article about how the recession threatens to leave us with a lost generation of young people devoid of opportunity, optimism and hope, yet no analysis was carried out when the decision was made to stop supporting ProjectScotland and no research into the social return on the investment made was conducted or presented by the Government.
There is a strong economic and social case to be made for directly supporting ProjectScotland. Its activities have resulted in a saving in welfare benefits of £3.16 million to date. More than 90 per cent of its volunteers move on to positive outcomes: employment, education, training, further volunteering or business start-ups. In 2008-09 alone, 40 per cent went on to employment, 29 per cent went on to training or education and 11 per cent went on to further volunteering or business start-ups.
Given those figures, I, and many others in the Parliament, have been part of a campaign to support that excellent organisation. I salute the efforts of colleagues such as Robin Harper, Robert Brown, Jackson Carlaw, Murdo Fraser and Margo MacDonald for their commitment to this very good cause. Like me, they have witnessed the undoubted benefits of the organisation's work in their constituencies and they can testify to the quality and commitment of the young people involved.
Please do not just take my word for it. Ask Kimby Tosh, a young woman from Perthshire whose life was turned around by her involvement in ProjectScotland—so much so that next month she will appear before the Public Petitions Committee to call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to demonstrate how it supports national youth volunteering opportunities that deliver skills development for all young people in Scotland and to commit to a national youth volunteering policy for Scotland.
In 2004, a relatively unknown senator, Barack Obama, spoke of the "audacity of hope". Five years later, as President of the United States, he turned that aspiration into action by signing into law the Edward M Kennedy Serve America Act of 2009, which will quadruple the number of AmeriCorps volunteers to 250,000. The Scottish cousin of AmeriCorps, ProjectScotland, has similar potential. The Scottish Government should support ProjectScotland. The answer from the Government has to be, "Yes we should. Yes we will. Yes we can."
I am pleased to take part in the debate; I am just sorry that it seems to be turning into a debate about ProjectScotland. There are many voluntary opportunities out there other than just ProjectScotland.
As others have said, there are many ways to volunteer, from being involved in organisations to working for the local community. Those are the two areas on which I want to concentrate.
The briefing that we received from the SCVO states:
"Volunteering should form part of a broader strategy of civic engagement and community empowerment … We need to ensure that volunteering is supported as a way of gaining and retaining skills."
Those aims are commendable but, as I said before, that is not the only way that people choose to volunteer. Last night, I attended the Glasgow community champion awards ceremony in Glasgow city chambers. People who were nominated for the awards, which are sponsored by the Evening Times and others, included people from voluntary organisations but also many individuals who work tirelessly for their communities—individuals, not organisations. They included Hugh and Margaret Tavendale, who have served their community for more than 30 years; Glasgow Old People's Welfare Association, which works tirelessly for older people in Glasgow and which has more than 1,000 volunteers who give of their time; a 21-year-old trainee doctor from the west end who volunteers in his community in his spare time; and the Ruchill Youth Project, through which young people volunteer in their community.
Does Sandra White agree that those volunteers need support, training and often counselling to fulfil their function in the most effective way, for their benefit and for the benefit of those for whom they volunteer? Does she agree that the Government must therefore ensure that such support is available?
I started by saying that there are many ways to volunteer and that people choose to volunteer in different ways. People choose whether they want to volunteer; we cannot force them to receive training or counselling. People such as Hugh and Margaret Tavendale chose to volunteer. They have never asked for training to be volunteers—volunteering came from their heart. Volunteering comes in many shapes and forms; it is not all orchestrated.
I was disappointed by the contributions from Robert Brown and Jackson Carlaw. Volunteering should not be seen as a way to take over jobs or training. People choose to volunteer. It would be disingenuous to say to young people that volunteering is the only way that they can get into a job. It is rather sad that the speeches that I have heard so far appear to say that young people must volunteer and a job will follow. These kids should be getting real jobs, real training and real apprenticeships. The voluntary sector should not be used to take people off the unemployment list and send them on to a job. We have to remember that volunteering is about choice.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I have less than 60 seconds left.
Everyone seems to be mentioning ProjectScotland. We should be congratulating Kate Mavor on her new job with the National Trust for Scotland—I am sure that she will do very well there.
We have to be honest and look at the figures for ProjectScotland, which show a cost of £8,934 per volunteering opportunity. I remind members of the previous Executive that they said that ProjectScotland should start to look to secure funding from the private sector. It has not done that yet. Please do not lecture anyone else on ProjectScotland.
There are many other volunteering organisations out there. People need a choice; they should not be forced into volunteering. It is about time that members listened to that. The people whom I mentioned chose to volunteer. They did not volunteer because they were told to; they chose from their hearts to help their communities, which is what volunteering is all about.
I am not surprised that, at the start of her speech, Sandra White said that she did not want to talk about ProjectScotland, but it was bizarre that, at the end, she launched into an outright attack on the organisation with her ill-judged and ill-informed comments. Far be it from me to leap to the defence of either Robert Brown or—God help me—Jackson Carlaw, but Sandra White completely and utterly distorted what they said. It was grossly unfair and was unhelpful in the context of the debate. On the one hand, it showed that she did not fully understand what was being discussed and, on the other, it showed contempt for all those who volunteer in many capacities that go beyond the very narrow one that Sandra White sought to define.
Does the member deny that the figures that I quoted came from the previous Executive? Further, is he saying that people who volunteer from their heart to help their communities are any less worthy than people who belong to a voluntary organisation?
I often wonder what people mean when they talk about a dialogue with the deaf. I think that I am beginning to experience a bit of that today, because Sandra White is clearly incapable of understanding what is being said. I do not intend to go into the figures around ProjectScotland. I merely point out that she launched into an ill-judged attack.
Johann Lamont was right to point out that, regrettably, there are organisations throughout Scotland—several MSPs, including me, have experience of this—that are profoundly worried about impacts on their budgets, particularly for helping with volunteer activity. Regrettably and tragically, they are scared to speak out. What kind of Scotland are we trying to build when we intimidate those who try to help others, and make them fear that their funding is under threat if they say anything?
I want to put on record the positive aspects of what volunteering can do. In my area, there are a number of projects that provide a fantastic range of services, from the small level of volunteering in the Renfrewshire Law Centre to the larger activities at the citizens advice bureaux, helping people with problems relating to benefits, debt and so on. I also have two WRVS projects in my constituency. One of those, the WRVS at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley, is long established and renowned throughout the west of Scotland. Its volunteers service the cafeteria, the gift shop and the newsagent. It also provides more than 100 volunteers for befriending and lunch clubs. Through the volunteers' efforts, particularly in the cafeteria and gift shop, phenomenal amounts of money are raised to provide valuable and essential services in the hospital. Indeed, Sandra Robertson, the area manager, cannot speak too highly of the service that the volunteers provide. The WRVS also runs a cafeteria in Causewayside Street in Paisley that not only is a fantastic drop-in facility for the public but helps people to volunteer.
I say to Sandra White that people manage to get back into work through such volunteering. They started out to help through the volunteering ethos, and helped themselves back into work in the process. They did not volunteer in order to get back into work, but they developed their talent, skills and confidence through their volunteering activities.
Last, but not least, I pay tribute to the Renfrewshire Carers Centre and its volunteering project, which provides a range of services, such as one-to-one volunteering and befriending. What is probably most significant is that it helps young people to do volunteering work and supports young carers. It is a truly outstanding service. Our gratitude goes to all those volunteers in the Renfrewshire Carers Centre and elsewhere who do such a magnificent job for the wider community.
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in the debate, because it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the many volunteers in my constituency who give their time, expertise and energy to assist their communities and the people within those communities.
Talking about ill-judged speeches, though, I think that we just heard one from Hugh Henry. He talked of fear and intimidation in the voluntary sector, but he obviously did not live in Fife for the 40 or 50 years in which Labour held thrall. However, I cannot see any way in which local organisations in Fife are not speaking up about threats to their funding or otherwise.
I spent part of the summer recess visiting projects in my constituency to find out more about their work and to give them my support. There are too many organisations to mention in this short speech, but my thanks go to all of them for the time that they spent with me. I want to concentrate on and highlight the work that is done by organisations that are volunteer led and supported, rather than refer to the voluntary sector that is supported by Government, council or health board funding, because there is a difference.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
I will mention first the Leven community cinema project, which was set up by the community council following a survey of the people of the town that showed that the overwhelming majority wanted a cinema. The first film was shown in December 2008. Led by Frank Walker, Alan Briggs, Pam MacDonald and Leven community council, the cinema project is going from strength to strength, and is now looking to acquire its own premises. The project was awarded £6,000 from the awards for all scheme. I was delighted to welcome my friend Michael Russell, the Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution, to present the project with its award.
The Leven community cinema project has managed to attract young people from schools to help with something in which they are interested. So inspired was I by the work of the Leven cinema project that I got together with David Nelson, who is the chair of Auchmuty tenants and residents association and Kingdom FM radio's volunteer of the year, and, following a public meeting in Glenrothes, set up a community cinema group there, which is driven by a new volunteer called Gavin Howe. The first show is likely to be in late November or early December in the Rothes halls.
I want to highlight, too, Auchmuty tenants and residents association, which now has its own community flat, providing a welcoming environment and a place where people can go for support and advice. David, Maureen, Jan, Kenny and a host of other volunteers have worked tirelessly over 25 years, with no reward apart from knowing that they have made their community a better place in which to live. Their garden and the work of the Pitteuchar garden project so inspired the judges in the Britain in bloom contest that Glenrothes was awarded a silver gilt medal.
Among other projects that I want to mention is St Ninian's charity shop and community cafe, which is a haven that offers home-made food at a reasonable price and a welcome to all. The project, which is now looking to extend the premises, donates its profits to other worthy organisations in the town. There is also Home-Start in Glenrothes, which supports vulnerable families and picks up on work that social work cannot do. If I had more time, I would mention many other organisations.
The test of a voluntary organisation or, indeed, any other organisation is what it delivers, who it assists and whether it makes a real difference to its community. The voluntary sector is many things, including people who volunteer and voluntary sector organisations that are supported by central and local Government and health boards. However, the test of the voluntary sector is the one that I laid out; it is not, and cannot be, about simply providing jobs for people within the voluntary sector. They must demonstrate what they can do and assist their communities. That is the test, now and in the future, for any voluntary organisation.
Like others, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate, because it is about an important issue for people in our local communities. Indeed, as we know, volunteers are the backbone of many community organisations and services. We should recognise and value their efforts. Everybody has examples of inspirational volunteers in their areas, and my area is no exception in that regard. There are people such as grandmother Brenda Emmerson, who recently won the Bighearted Scotland carer of the year award and who volunteers as well as taking up her caring responsibilities. There is Pearl Barton in Maybole, who, although she is a pensioner herself, runs a range of activities for older people and organises a charity shop to help others. There is also young art student Karly Burns, who, despite having cystic fibrosis, has sustained a volunteering commitment to the charity Momentum while completing her masters degree.
There are too many people to list and many examples, young and old; what they have in common is that they are willing to give their time for the benefit of the community. However, that does not mean that they should not be supported and that there should not be structure and training when it is necessary. The briefings for the debate from umbrella organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland, WRVS and Community Service Volunteers highlight the importance of putting in place the infrastructure to support volunteering. As Johann Lamont highlighted, we might expect the Scottish Government to take account of that and to put such support in place. As the voluntary action fund briefing points out, although that support does not need to be expensive or overengineered, it needs to be there. I agree.
I agree, too, with members who called for support for volunteering to be offered to those in the most disadvantaged communities. I say gently to Sandra White—because I thought that she might have picked up on this—that for someone who lives in a disadvantaged area and does not have a lot of cash or support, it can be difficult to make the time and to get to a place where they can use their good will to volunteer in the community. That is exactly why organisations such as ProjectScotland, which was designed to be Scotland's national youth volunteering scheme, were so important in areas such as mine.
Bill Butler has been a great advocate of ProjectScotland, as have Johann Lamont, Hugh Henry and other members who have spoken today. I want to add a couple of words about why it was so important in my area, where young people had the opportunity to participate in volunteering programmes with the Forestry Commission. Many young people in some of the most disadvantaged parts of my constituency, such as the Doon valley, Auchinleck and Kincaidston in Ayr, had the chance to learn new skills and meet new people. Importantly, they were part of an organisation that was not simply set up for poorer or disadvantaged young people. They met others from different areas and faced new challenges. For many of them, for the first time in their lives they succeeded at something and gained the respect of the community. So why has that scheme not continued?
The argument that it is for ProjectScotland to negotiate with local authorities shows exactly what is wrong with the Scottish Government's approach. I worked in the voluntary sector at the time of local government reorganisation and I know how much more difficult it was to deal with 32 individual local authorities than with the small number of former regional councils. As the director of a charity, I moved from directly supporting work with young people to filling in forms and constantly seeking funding. Every year, I worried whether I would have to make staff redundant. Sadly, we seem to be returning to that rather than moving forward.
I am glad that ProjectScotland is in the process of implementing work in South Ayrshire with the Forestry Commission, funded through the Department for Work and Pensions future jobs fund. The work will be based on the previous successful volunteering projects and will allow young people to take up six-month jobs with the Forestry Commission. That is welcome, but it would be even more welcome if the Scottish Government would reverse the damage that it has done by slashing ProjectScotland's budget, ensure that that funding is restored and give every young person in Scotland who wants it the opportunity to participate in that programme.
The debate is about tackling disadvantage by means of volunteering, and Johann Lamont outlined it very meaningfully. She was the first to touch on the funding problems. Robert Brown's amendment focuses on young people. Despite what Jim Mather and Jackson Carlaw say, ours is a positive amendment because, as Robert Brown said, young people are our future.
Robert Brown made an interesting point about the role of interns and placements. As a member of the Scottish Parliament and as someone who has been in business in the past, I have long felt that we do not do enough to encourage that. If the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism feels unable to comment on that when he sums up, he might want to consider it.
The minister talked about the commitment of volunteers and made the interesting observation that not all volunteers see themselves as volunteers. There is a great deal of truth in that, and we might all want to reflect on it. I can think of many people in my constituency who are doing tremendous work but who would be the last to call themselves volunteers. I wonder why that is. It is something that we might learn from.
I look forward to hearing what the minister says; many points have been raised that he must address. Jackson Carlaw—perhaps on orders from further south—challenged the Labour Party then turned his tanks through 90° and laid into the Scottish Government. We can see why he did that, but he observed the niceties of responding to the order to attack Labour at all times.
However, like other members such as Cathy Jamieson and Bill Butler, Jackson Carlaw correctly focused on the loss of funding for ProjectScotland. I view the issue perhaps from the perspective of being far away from the areas that are most directly involved with the organisation. However, when Cathy Jamieson speaks of youngsters getting involved in forestry, I know exactly what she means. In the past few days, I have visited the Forestry Commission and have seen the difference that it makes to young lives. I was told by a forester that it gives the young people a reason to get out of bed in the morning, and one youngster said:
"Because it's been a hard day out there, I sleep so much better."
What Cathy Jamieson said was music to my ears.
I pay tribute to Volunteering Highland in my constituency; it has put in place a system, which is duplicated throughout Scotland, for the recognition of volunteering. When volunteers stand up and receive a certificate or an award for what they have done, that is particularly valuable. It introduces not only the element of pride, but the idea of community thanks for what they do. I applaud Volunteering Highland for its endeavours on that front. A 90-year-old lady in John Farquhar Munro's constituency still helps to run the village hall—she stacks up the chairs at the end of the day. She probably does not think of herself as a volunteer, but my goodness me she makes a contribution.
In my constituency, there is the Caithness science festival. As the minister knows, although enterprise money goes into it, the festival could not be as big or successful as it is on the limited funding available if it was not for the element of volunteers. I pay tribute to the employers who give their employees time off work to contribute to the festival, and who see it as a form of professional advancement. The idea of volunteering within paid employment as a form of professional advancement, which can advance not just society but people's careers, is sound.
I beg members to support Robert Brown's entirely reasonable and positive amendment.
I thank Labour for bringing such an important subject to Parliament. My only regret is that just over an hour is not enough time to do justice to the subject. In the short time available to me, I shall concentrate my remarks, as others such as Bill Butler and Cathy Jamieson did, on ProjectScotland and its life-changing work—I use that phrase advisedly—for a great many young people. It is simply a mistake for the Scottish National Party Government to cut the funding for such an excellent volunteer programme.
I confess that when ProjectScotland was set up by the previous Executive, I was initially sceptical. Why should the taxpayer fund volunteers? If they were genuinely volunteering, why did they need payment? My views on that changed as a result of my local engagement with ProjectScotland volunteers. More than 130 young people in Perth and Kinross have benefited from ProjectScotland placements.
As other members, including Jackson Carlaw, have mentioned, staff and volunteers from the Strathmore Centre for Youth Development in Blairgowrie—known as SCYD—came to the Parliament in June, with young people from elsewhere in Scotland, to tell MSPs about ProjectScotland's work with voluntary projects such as SCYD. At SCYD, there is a young woman called Kimby Tosh, who Bill Butler referred to, who has been a trainee youth worker at the centre since the end of 2008. Kimby lives in the same town as me, Alyth, and I know about the difference that ProjectScotland has made to her life. When Kimby came here in June, she explained to MSPs the huge difference that ProjectScotland and SCYD have made.
At the age of 13, Kimby started drinking alcohol on a daily basis. She was getting into trouble and was eventually expelled from school. At that point, she got involved with the local youth centre, where staff worked with her and were so impressed with her progress that they encouraged her to become a ProjectScotland volunteer. Kimby explained to MSPs and other volunteers that the ProjectScotland placement had helped her to grow in confidence and ability. She now delivers local community-based projects for young people in Blairgowrie and across eastern Perthshire. She is a role model for many youngsters in the area.
When she came to the Parliament in support of ProjectScotland, Kimby said of its work:
"Their support enabled me to volunteer at SCYD and I'm really pleased that I can do something for them in return. If it hadn't been for my placement I'd probably still be drinking and my life would be going nowhere."
Not only that but, as Bill Butler said, Kimby Tosh is now a leading light in the campaign for ProjectScotland. She has lodged a petition that calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to keep youth volunteering high up the political agenda and to develop and implement a national youth volunteering policy for Scotland.
Kimby Tosh is an inspiration, and her example proves why volunteering is so important. Here is someone who wanted to turn her life around; volunteering has allowed that transformation to take place. As a result of the SNP Government's cut in funding for ProjectScotland, only 13 young people were able to complete volunteer placements in Perth and Kinross in 2008-09, compared with 67 in the previous year. Organisations such as the YMCA in Perth, which has had a number of excellent volunteers through the programme, are missing out on that opportunity. That also means that young people in Perthshire are missing out on the opportunity to gain experience. The situation is duplicated across Scotland.
We need more young people like Kimby Tosh in Scotland today, but that will happen only if the Government is prepared to restore funding to ProjectScotland. I was dismayed by the minister's dismissive and negative comments about ProjectScotland in response to my earlier intervention. I appeal to him, either in his closing remarks or in quiet reflection afterwards, to accept that the SNP has simply got this one wrong. There is still time for ministers to do the right thing; I will applaud them if they do.
This has been a genuinely important debate, because volunteering is about community helping community. That is why I will accentuate the constructive aspects of the debate—Robert Brown's comment about turning difficulty into hope and Johann Lamont's comment about joining together to face the challenges. It is clear that the third sector can and will play a role in lifting us to new levels of social cohesion, as well as in lifting us out of recession and giving us a more robust economy in the long term.
There is a great deal of evidence that the pathway back to work is often eased by the stepping stone of volunteering. A volunteering placement can restore self-esteem, reinstate the routine of daily activity, which is often lost through unemployment, and retain, revive and develop skills. It is good that various organisations across Scotland have been awarded contracts for return to work, which are often associated with pathways that take in volunteering. Members will note that the DWP has awarded £120 million to the Wise Group in Glasgow for its return-to-work programme. More and more people and organisations are working together in common cause. At the other end of the spectrum, the DWP has awarded a contract to Volunteer Development Scotland and its fellow consortium members to use the skills of volunteer centres to bring young people into work.
The new integrated approach to solutions is best delivered at local level. Each area of Scotland is affected in a different way by the consequences of recession, so solutions must play to local strengths and reflect local differences. Our proposals to bring the third sector into community planning partnerships are central to ensuring that CPPs have access to the third sector's knowledge and experience. The new interfaces should be essential to planning the outcomes that CPPs will pursue and devising programmes that will deliver them. That is a key role for the third sector. It is vital that its voice is heard and that it is at the heart of decision making. Ten interfaces with CPPs have already been agreed, and more are emerging each week. When volunteer centres were separate entities, their role in promoting the interests of volunteering was important. Now the ambition is that volunteers will be considered at the centre of CPPs.
I am glad that the minister has agreed to meet local CVSs, which are concerned about the situation. If at that meeting they say that they feel that they are being forced into merger, through threats around funding, will the minister do something about that, reassure them and ensure that all mergers are voluntary, not forced?
I certainly will. We are ensuring that we address the issue in a mature way and produce valid information that all of us can understand and on which all of us can agree, to enable us to make informed choices. We will monitor vigilantly the effectiveness of what we decide to implement. That is the issue that we are facing today.
Sandra White made a good point about the narrowness of today's debate and the width and scope of volunteering. We have focused heavily on ProjectScotland. I am happy to pay tribute to ProjectScotland for the work that it has done, but it was a niche product, only for full-time volunteers, and today it is a different animal. Cathy Jamieson, other members and I have spoken about the liaison with the DWP, the Forestry Commission, Skills Development Scotland and others that is taking ProjectScotland to a different place. When the previous Administration allocated £17 million to ProjectScotland, many other volunteering organisations lost out in the search for resources. The agency connected volunteers to opportunities, but those opportunities were provided by other volunteering organisations.
We give credit to ProjectScotland for what it has done to adapt. It now has an opportunity to focus on those in real need—unlike previously, when 80 per cent of volunteers were not in that category. In the future, we will be able to make better, more informed choices, but that requires us to come together now. We know that volunteers need support and strongly believe that they are essential to delivery of the benefits to each member of the community that single outcome agreements set out.
Two weeks ago, we were proud to be associated with a statement by the third sector task force that set out how the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, the Scottish Government and the third sector will work together. Volunteering is a central part of our activity; it is important that we harvest this active citizenry and get it working in a more cohesive way. That will happen. As a result of the interfaces that will be created in CPPs, we will have great success stories that can be broadcast and which will allow people to learn from the work that is being done elsewhere.
Today's debate is evidence of the fact that members from all parties are firmly behind volunteering. We welcome that. Equally, we remain committed to go further. We believe that volunteering is essential to delivering a successful, sustainable economy in Scotland and will continue to work to that end. I look forward to having Johann Lamont attend our meeting with CVSs.
The debate has been interesting, because it has captured three elements of the SNP's approach since it came into government. First, there has been further evidence of its willingness to ignore the will of Parliament. Parliament has spoken before on the issue of ProjectScotland, but the SNP has chosen to ignore its voice. Secondly, we have heard warm words that are a million miles away from delivery or any sense of responsibility for what is happening. Thirdly, there has been absolute silence from Government back benchers, who are unwilling to suggest that anything that ministers are doing may not be absolutely correct.
I was chided by an SNP back bencher when I mentioned their craven compliance. She told me that I did not like the fact that SNP members are united. My problem is that I do not like unity that is at the expense of voluntary organisations and others that need members to speak up for them. The great test of the maturity of the SNP Government is whether its back benchers are allowed and have the confidence to raise even a squeak about the problems that our local communities face.
Given my record over the past few weeks, when I spoke here opposing the Government on an issue in my constituency, I object strongly to the member's suggestion that I would not criticise ministers. However, I will not criticise them on this occasion, because on this occasion they are right.
The member is to be congratulated on having the confidence to oppose the Government once; whether that is followed through in voting is a different matter. The point has been made, and the member may want to reflect on it.
I have referred to the Government's warm words. Is the minister seriously saying that there are no concerns in voluntary organisations and among volunteers, and that they do not think that there is a problem? He said that all the pessimism is here in the chamber, rather than in the outside world. What does he think the hearse that was brought to the Parliament was about? Why does he think that Unite, Unison and the SCVO came together to express their concerns? Why, does he imagine, are people talking about the cuts at local level? Are they just making it up, as Tricia Marwick seemed to suggest? I found her comments that the voluntary sector has to be about more than just jobs for those who work in it absolutely insulting to those who have raised issues of concern; she may wish to reflect on that.
In relation to Mr Mather's warm words and the issue of ProjectScotland, I do not think that the whole debate is actually about ProjectScotland. ProjectScotland captures an approach. I would like somebody in the SNP to explain to me why its members have such a problem with ProjectScotland. They are supporting a motion that welcomes
"organisations that create structured volunteering placements for young people, such as ProjectScotland",
and they agree that such organisations
"should be recognised and supported by the Scottish Government."
Are SNP members seriously saying that support does not involve funding, and that it involves only warm words? If so, they need to reflect on that, too.
We are told that there is a value-for-money test for ProjectScotland. As we have said, 87 per cent of the moneys will go into the pockets of young people in the poorest of our communities. Perhaps the minister would have more credibility on the argument around the value-for-money test if he was not promoting a Scottish Futures Trust that is spending £23 million to deliver absolutely nothing.
The minister has spoken about passion. We all have passion about the voluntary sector. However, passion does not deliver services, and it does not in itself make a difference in our communities. The interesting thing about people who volunteer—and about the voluntary sector—is that they have passion in partnership with a hard-headed approach. If volunteers say that they are in dire straits, we should listen to them, rather than dismiss them in the way that has been suggested in the debate.
The Government makes great play of the resilience fund. Apparently, it is wonderful and it will help the voluntary sector when it is under the cosh. Actually, that captures a lack of responsibility. The Scottish Government creates the crisis, cutting funding to local government despite its increased budget; it imposes a council tax freeze; and it uses a single outcome agreement model and the concordat without properly funding it, which is the major problem, rather than the model itself, as is suggested in Robert Brown's amendment. Then, when people say that there is a problem, the Government creates a resilience fund of £1.7 million for one year only—from old, previously announced money—which is a sticking plaster, and then trumpets that as a great success and evidence of its willingness to address the problem.
The minister talks about how the SCVO, COSLA and the Scottish Government have produced a joint statement. That joint statement, on glossy paper, leaves unspoken some of the key issues that voluntary organisations, voluntary sector representatives and volunteers themselves have been addressing, including the difficult issue of full cost recovery.
The minister started by saying that he wanted to accentuate the positive. The problem with that approach, which captures the language of a cheesy song from a cheesy musical, is that the minister is entirely distancing himself from the consequence of his Government's actions. He is creating the impression that being nice about things will make a difference. As I have said, however, the voluntary sector is a tough place, doing tough things, and it deserves a better approach than that.
The minister talked about ProjectScotland as a niche product. As that one phrase shows, could there be a bigger gap between our vision, across the Parliament, of what ProjectScotland is and the minister's view of it? It is a project that has changed lives. The minister says that the Government wants to focus on people who are really difficult to reach, rather than on people who do not deserve it. The figures about the reduction in placements across Scotland show that those reductions are coming about in the poorest of our communities, not in better-off communities. Where ProjectScotland was reaching out to youngsters in deprived communities, it is now less able to do so.
I urge the minister, SNP back benchers and the Scottish Government to treat volunteering and voluntary organisations with respect. There is a surfeit of warm words wherever we talk about volunteering, but the test must be whether the SNP is willing to recognise that this is not a trumped-up debate by the Opposition but a reflection of serious concerns across Scotland about the way in which Government decisions and actions are hampering organisations' capacity to do what they do best.
When meeting representatives of voluntary sector organisations, I urge the minister to deal with the issue of intimidation and to meet them as genuine partners. We will judge the capacity and effectiveness of such meetings by whether there is a shift in his and his Government's policy.