Volunteering
The next item of business is a debate on volunteering.
Over the past year, I have met many volunteers. Most recently, on Monday I met young people in Aberdeen and Peterhead. I start by paying tribute to everything that volunteers—the young and the not so young—do day in, day out throughout Scotland.
Volunteering is strong in Scotland, and the position that we enjoy on the domestic, European and world stages is positive. In the United Kingdom, Scotland has had three firsts: it was the first country to produce a strategy for volunteering, the first country to fund a national network of volunteer centres and the first to establish a national programme of full-time and part-time volunteering for our young people through ProjectScotland and the millennium volunteers programme.
Scotland is leading the way and has much to be proud of in relation to implementation of the Russell commission recommendation to develop a national framework for youth action and engagement, but we are far from complacent. We will continue to build on that strong position by developing and sharing best practice, by supporting young volunteers through schools and further and higher education institutions, by encouraging and supporting volunteering in the public sector, by making volunteering an important element of our strategy for an aging population, and through our continuing support for the millennium volunteer youth development workers, ProjectScotland, Volunteer Development Scotland and the network of volunteer centres.
Just before Christmas, we published our vision for the next phase of development of our relationship with the voluntary sector. Our aim is to unlock the potential of voluntary and community action so that the sector is regarded as an equal partner with the public and private sectors and its broad contribution to communities and to Scotland is fully recognised. The sector's strength lies in its independence, its values, its diversity, its connection to communities and—crucially—its volunteer base.
Volunteers have a particular contribution to make to building strong communities and in acting as agents of change in society. As well as being instrumental in transforming how things are done for the better, they have a role to play in building confidence in people's abilities and outlook, and they can change how society thinks about and responds to issues. Our volunteering strategy is one way in which we will work to achieve that vision. The strategy acknowledges the need to offer high-quality volunteering opportunities and to make the volunteer welcomed and valued. Volunteers should be gainers as well as givers—they should receive guidance, training and support.
A focus of the strategy is our determination to create more opportunities for people who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, such as unemployed people, the long-term sick, the poor and those in society who lack formal qualifications. Members might have seen, or heard on the radio, the recent "You won't believe what you can do!" volunteering adverts, which are part of our campaign to raise awareness of volunteering and of how to get involved, which builds on the activities that were undertaken during the year of the volunteer in 2005 and directly supports implementation of our volunteering strategy. The campaign has directly resulted in a 100 per cent increase in the number of visits that have been made to the world-class Volunteer Scotland website, which holds information on volunteering opportunities throughout Scotland.
A significant element of the campaign has been work with Jobcentre Plus to ensure that everyone who wants to volunteer has the opportunity to do so. Research has shown clearly that individuals who come from lower socioeconomic groups are less likely to volunteer, even though they are not less willing to do so. That situation must change and I am pleased that volunteer centres are entering formal partnership agreements with Jobcentre Plus and are considering doing the same with Careers Scotland. The key to realising the vision and achieving the aims of the volunteering strategy is to ensure that volunteering becomes an integral part of Scotland's culture.
Central to that are recent initiatives such as ProjectScotland. I met people who work on ProjectScotland a month or so ago and am pleased about the progress that has been made in harnessing the energy, talents and enthusiasm of our 16 to 25-year-olds and in giving them the opportunity to develop their full potential. More and more young people are benefiting from a sustained period of volunteering, but we know that many young people still find it hard to volunteer. ProjectScotland targets that group in an effort to give them the chance to learn new skills and to enjoy new experiences. Through volunteering, young Scots can make the most of their lives while giving something back to their communities and their country.
ProjectScotland is already working. To date, young people from all walks of life have made more than 6,500 enquiries to ProjectScotland, which have led to more than 1,100 applications being made and more than 320 volunteers being given placements. ProjectScotland is making a difference for our young people by letting them experience success and by building their confidence. It is also working for our communities, which benefit from the enormous contribution that the new generation of volunteers is making.
Let us look at examples: there is the volunteer who is placed with the National Trust for Scotland, who lives in a bothy and provides educational activities for young people; the person who is involved in organising activities for the Edinburgh festival fringe; and the man who developed confidence and a sense of purpose by volunteering straight from prison, which helped him to decide on a career in youth work.
ProjectScotland is helping more and more young people to feel connected to their communities, to use their skills, interests and talents to help others and to gain self-confidence, self-reliance and new skills. Those people will be better equipped to move on in life, whether that means going into employment or training, starting their own businesses, or going on to more volunteering. We are right to be proud of ProjectScotland and of how it is taking volunteering into the 21st century.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am in my last minute, so I cannot take any interventions.
I want to pay tribute to the tremendous contribution that older people make. We have only to consider the 15 per cent of people aged over 75 who actively volunteer. Older people are a fundamental element of the Scottish voluntary sector, from being active on boards and community councils, to helping out at the local primary school or hospital. I applaud Liz Burns and the people on the retired and senior volunteers programme for their work on the strategy for older volunteering in Scotland—the hidden resource. Their work has involved consultation with older people, and the strategy sets out the benefits and impacts of older volunteering.
Older people tell of the satisfaction of being able to give something back. I have no time to go through the examples on my list, but I will mention one of my recent engagements. A week or so ago, I met people from the paths to health project. The project has trained more than 1,400 volunteer walk leaders across Scotland, the vast majority of whom are in the 50-plus age bracket. Through helping others, they themselves benefit as well.
The contribution of older people to society—whether that contribution is voluntary or paid, personal or professional—is immense. We are developing the strategy for an aging population and at its heart will be valuing, supporting, recognising and encouraging the contribution that older people make. Of course, we will also ensure that they receive the services that they need, when they need them.
With initiatives such as ProjectScotland, I firmly believe that Scotland is at the forefront of volunteering. The potential is almost limitless. Over the next 15 years, thousands of volunteers will help people throughout across the country. Thousands of lives will be touched and thousands of lives will change. This is only the beginning—the real prize is to move from a culture of disengagement to a culture of participation. Volunteering can, and will, help us to achieve that prize.
I have three preliminary points. Members on this side of the chamber also commend all the people who work in the voluntary sector—especially the unpaid, the young and the old—from the person who serves in the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shop in their local high street, to the people who work in the big beasts of the voluntary sector such as Age Concern, Help the Aged and Citizens Advice Scotland, which provide us with so much data in briefings that are essential to our work as MSPs. There are also the people who care for neighbours and friends and who might not realise that they are seen as being part of the voluntary sector, although they are. The quality of life of those neighbours and friends would be much lower without their volunteer carers.
My second preliminary point is that I am not a fan of this kind of debate. It has no focus, so one wonders what its point is. The last thing we need is another volunteering debate that is all motherhood and apple pie. In May last year, the Deputy Minister for Communities said:
"The challenge of the debate on the voluntary sector is that it poses a question for us all: How do we debate the voluntary sector without being cosy, precious or patronising … ?"—[Official Report, 19 May 2005; c 17075.]
Well, I was waiting for some meat from the minister—an announcement of some kind—but it did not come. Last night, I read the Official Report of the debate from May last year; parts of the minister's speech this morning were a rehash that could have been cut and pasted from that debate.
My third preliminary point is about parliamentary time. In the Shirley McKie case there has been a £750,000 settlement, but the Minister for Justice cannot come to the chamber to make a statement. There was a slot available this morning. Worthy though the voluntary sector is, we could have debated it at another time.
I now want to move to the real meat of the debate, as raised by the minister last year. The main issue then was funding. Donald Gorrie, I and others pointed out the problems that were arising when projects did not receive continuous funding. The minister acknowledged our points and said:
"We want to make it easier for voluntary organisations to do what they do best by focusing on service delivery. The Executive is committed to providing a rolling programme of three-year funding."—[Official Report, 19 May 2005; c 17115.]
We therefore look to the strategic funding review. Where is it? It was announced in November 2000 but it has still not delivered. Five years on, charitable organisations, which are delivering more and more front-line services, still do not have secure funding.
The Borders young carers service in my constituency supports 180 young people and has another 300 on its waiting list. Despite that, the service has had to scramble around for funding to keep its essential work going. More and more often, because of cuts in local government funding, the need to provide front-line services for vulnerable people is landing in the laps of voluntary organisations, but the funding streams of those organisations are insecure—not only the stream that comes directly from the coalition Government but the stream that comes from local authorities. No wonder, therefore, that I am aggrieved and cross about the way we are talking about the voluntary sector.
Everything the minister said was true. The voluntary sector, as well as providing something altruistic for people to do, is a gateway that can help young people to improve their employment prospects. The voluntary sector also allows elderly people to contribute and to be valued, but we all know that. Let us talk about the nitty-gritty. The supporting people fund is at a standstill and in some areas it has been cut, which affects vulnerable people who may now have to rely on the voluntary sector—but the minister did not talk about that.
Some things have improved. Following the Bichard report, the Minister for Education and Young People announced changes in respect of disclosure, which has been a huge burden on the voluntary sector; at last it has been acknowledged that the forms are too complicated. Many forms were being returned because people had put the wrong thing in a box, or had done it in the wrong colour of ink, or because there were multiple applications. What nonsense. Fathers who wanted to volunteer to help the local school with rugby training had to get disclosure forms. At last, it has been acknowledged that the disclosure form is valid only on the day on which it is issued. Those are crucial issues that should be debated in Parliament. The minister is a good man at heart, but let us have a debate on the voluntary sector that touches on funding, Disclosure Scotland, and how the voluntary sector is being relied on more and more to deliver front-line services that social workers and allied professionals in the health service used to deliver. Let us debate those issues for a change.
I had thought that today would offer an opportunity for us to hear an update on the volunteering strategy and the national youth volunteering programme, which would have helped us to make progress in the debate. I welcome, nonetheless, any debate on volunteering and any opportunity to thank all the people who give so much of their time to their communities in order to help and benefit others. I am pleased to hear the minister say that he is not complacent, because we cannot be complacent about volunteering.
More than 90 per cent of the people who are involved in citizens advice bureaux are volunteers. They help people in a wide range of areas; for example, by managing their debts or by offering them advice on welfare benefits. A person's debt cannot be managed through one visit to the CAB. I have been a volunteer so I know that it often takes months or even years before we are able to help people back to financial stability. It is disappointing that Citizens Advice Scotland has constantly to penny-pinch. In the Highlands, it has faced cuts year on year, despite the excellent service that it provides.
When we think of volunteers, we probably do not think of mountain rescue teams. On Saturday, I met the Cairngorm mountain rescue team, which is led by John Allan and is highly trained and professional. They take to the Cairngorm mountains in all weathers, at all times of the day or night and in all months of the year to rescue walkers and climbers. All the mountain rescue teams in Scotland are highly trained, dedicated and undoubtedly fit for their purpose in every sense. So why—I ask the minister—is it that they must worry where next year's funding is coming from? The previous three-year settlement is almost at an end and uncertainty is creeping in. I ask the deputy minister to commit, when she sums up, to looking into that.
A total of £400 million is directed at the voluntary sector, and millions more is directed to the national health service and local councils. However, I find it difficult to advise people when they come to my surgery and say, "My daughter has a heroin problem and my sister is killing herself with alcohol. Where do I go?" I have to stop and think. People are passed from pillar to post. They go round in circles.
It is incredible that so much money is provided for drug and alcohol rehabilitation in the voluntary sector, but that no one-stop shop—a gateway—is provided to advise families and addicts on the best sources of help. Although I am not criticising the minister about the money that is provided for such projects, as an MSP I have found it difficult to help families that are in such circumstances. It is not just down to patient confidentiality. It is an area where the Executive's departments must work together to address the problem.
It is also incredible that this year the Highland Council will give no uplift in funding to the voluntary sector. That is equivalent to another cutback that will severely affect smaller voluntary organisations.
I am pleased that David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party, has placed volunteering high on his political agenda. I am also pleased that his initiative was endorsed by the chief executive of ProjectScotland, who said that she is pleased that the power and impact of the voluntary sector are acknowledged across the UK. Although the details of the Conservative party's policy have yet to be defined, we welcome the consultation.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I have only a few seconds left.
Possible solutions that are being considered in Mr Cameron's policy review at Westminster include offering longer-term contracts for provision of services, such as those I have mentioned, which will allow the voluntary sector to grow. A relaxing of the rules in the tax and benefits system to reward voluntary work is also being considered. It will be for the Scottish Conservatives to decide on our policy for Scotland, but we welcome the priority and focus that have been given by Mr Cameron.
The two main problems that are faced by the voluntary sector are the lack of financial stability and the growing lack of volunteers. I listened carefully to the minister on inclusion in volunteering as an integral part of Scotland's culture. I want to highlight several points that are made in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing notes.
You are now quite over your time.
In that case, I will conclude.
Volunteering is a route into employment for many people, including people who have mental health problems and people who are recovering drug and alcohol addicts. It can help to build confidence, particularly in older volunteers.
We do have some time in hand.
Well—thanks for that.
Mrs Scanlon, you have had the extra time. The notified time for speeches in the debate is four minutes. However, if members speak to five minutes we should be relatively comfortable.
The minister made a good speech; his heart is genuinely in this work. However, I have some suggestions as to how he can deliver better.
Christine Grahame also made a particularly good speech. Although it does not always help to have her on one's side of an argument, I hope that the minister will attend to the points that she made.
The Liberal Democrats strongly support volunteering. Today, many of my colleagues have volunteered to improve Dunfermline's social and community life rather than attend the debate. Their hearts are with us while their legs wander Dunfermline.
Although the Executive has developed some good schemes for encouraging volunteering, the structures are still not satisfactory. One needs organisations with which one can volunteer. If I decide to give up this Parliament rubbish to become a youth club leader, but no clubs exist in my area, I cannot volunteer. Support for existing organisations is vital. A leading light in the youth work voluntary sector informed me that she was concerned that shiny and new is considered good, while tried and tested is considered bad. The Executive puts money into projects such as ProjectScotland which, the minister assures us, does good work. However, if a small amount of its funding were put into securing the position of national youth organisations, more good would be done.
Support for national and local organisations is needed from Government and councils. Far too much project funding is not sustained. Projects die off after three years because no funding is given to old projects. The idea is that a shiny new project can receive funding for three years, but must somehow at the end of that period magically secure funding from elsewhere. The Executive, charitable trusts and the national lottery will not provide funding for existing projects—they need something new. The desire for newness is a curse on and disaster for the voluntary sector. I do not care whether it is called core funding or investment: existing organisations must receive continuing funding to keep good projects going, rather than there being constant invention of new projects.
Funding must be made available for volunteers. Yesterday, we debated council budgets. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, as Mary Scanlon said, this year all councils will cut their budgets to the voluntary sector. The Executive must keep an eye on that because many good local organisations could go down the tubes. Yesterday, a good announcement was made about disclosure. For years, many of us have highlighted how bad the system has been. At last that has been recognised and a good system seems to have been put in place.
Community enterprises—another part of the voluntary sector—use many volunteers and are commercial and flourish in the market place. They do good work in their communities; they offer opportunities for people to enter various careers and to become small entrepreneurs. Many of them use volunteers to help paid people in recycling and reducing waste. In many cases, however, those enterprises are disadvantaged by purchasing policy. The ministers must support them as well as they can. I hope that ministers will put their good intentions to practical effect and crack this business of inadequate and inconsistent funding of voluntary organisations.
We go now to the open debate and, as I said, speeches of five minutes.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on volunteering and the important contribution volunteers make to Scottish society. It is right that Parliament is considering the issue because, without our army of volunteers, we would not be able to function as a civilised society. Without the hundreds of thousands of carers, who give up their time and effort to care for friends and family, the NHS would grind to a halt. Without the tens of thousands of uniformed youth leaders, Scotland would be a less attractive place for our young people to live in. Without the vast fundraising that is done by volunteers daily, our charities would simply not function. Volunteering is the lifeblood of our society, which is why it is vital that we do everything we can to support people who give freely of their time to help others.
The extent of volunteering within all communities means that there are always new stories to tell about how it makes a positive difference. It is not about being shiny and new—it is about communities being innovative and meeting the new challenges that they face. For example, many of the communities that I represent benefit from the services that are provided by their local credit union. Credit unions, such as Newmains Credit Union Ltd, provide their members with local access to low-cost savings and loans facilities. They help to build the habits of regular saving and responsible borrowing. In addition, they provide a high level of training for their volunteers by developing their skills in money handling, accountancy and project management, to name but a few areas. That wide range of skills helps to make credit union volunteers highly employable.
I also highlight the excellent work that the volunteer centre in North Lanarkshire does. One exciting project that it has just launched is the help into trade—HIT—squad. The project has been part-funded by money from the European social fund and aims to help young people gain an insight into working in the traditional trades. It is particularly for young people who would not normally volunteer. On Monday, 11 young people aged between 16 and 25 started at the project. They will have the opportunity to attend local colleges for taster training sessions on trades such as painting and decorating, joinery and gardening. After that, the volunteer centre will place them in work with local voluntary groups, which might include gardening for a local care home or painting and decorating for a local voluntary project. It is an excellent example of how volunteering can be a win-win activity: local voluntary groups gain much-needed assistance and the young people gain experience that may help them to decide to pursue a career in the trades or, at least, make them more employable in the future.
In fact, from talking to staff at a volunteer centre, it is clear to me that the benefits of volunteering to the individual volunteer are becoming increasingly relevant. Volunteering can be a good way back into work for those who have been unemployed for some time or who are recovering from an illness. In addition, volunteering is good for communities and for society at large. Community involvement and participation help to strengthen the social bonds between people and build stronger communities, which has a positive knock-on effect on other important areas such as health and crime.
I am sure that, over the past few months, many members have been invited to a large number of pensioners events, whether Christmas dinners or Burns suppers. All those groups are run by volunteers—the committee members, fund raisers and organisers—whose efforts help to ensure that our senior citizens, many of whom have lost their partners or family and now live alone, do not become isolated in their communities. Pensioners groups help to build strong social connections at precisely the time when such connections are most needed and the pensioners are most vulnerable. They also demonstrate clearly that people neither need nor want always to rely on the state for the provision of services, but want the state, whether through local or national government, to support their activities rather than hinder them.
It is important that we celebrate the work of volunteers throughout Scotland. It is also important that we take positive steps to encourage and support people—in particular, young people—to volunteer in their communities. I welcome the steps that the Executive has already taken towards that goal and I urge the minister to continue the drive to make Scotland one of the volunteering centres of Europe.
Like Christine Grahame, I was a bit worried about having another subject debate on volunteering. I had hoped that I would hear some announcements about the strategic funding review or full cost recovery or that futurebuilders Scotland was more successful than when we last debated it, when it was running behind schedule, but I heard nothing of the sort. We are in danger of becoming a bit patronising by patting people in the voluntary sector on the back every now and then. It is a wonderful sector in which people do wonderful things, but how long can the Executive come up with task forces and strategies without coming up with the goods that make the sector work better?
The latest strategy is "A Vision for the Voluntary Sector: The Next Phase of Our Relationship", which Malcolm Chisholm launched in December 2005 and which I read through again last night. It does not say anything with which I disagree, but it certainly says some things that I do not quite understand—we must have such documents in language that is easier to understand; the Plain English Campaign comes to mind.
The vision outlines some of the elements of Executive policy so far, some of which have been good, but I am concerned that it does not say what our voluntary sector as a whole is about and acknowledge the sector's diversity. I am worried that we are starting to talk about the voluntary sector as if it is all one, without realising that, just because people are in voluntary organisations, that does not mean they are all the same. It is the same with the business sector: we talk about it as if it is all one, but everybody realises that IBM is not quite the same as the wee grocer shop on the corner.
I make a plea on behalf of small organisations that have been working away in their communities for many years—decades, in some cases—but feel that they are losing out because the umbrella organisations are involved in a big voluntary sector push. That push is a good thing, but not all voluntary organisations are members of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, have staff or feel confident to approach the Executive.
To add to that, does Linda Fabiani agree that not all volunteers work in the voluntary sector? Many volunteers work in the statutory sector.
Yes, and that is what Christine Grahame said earlier. There are an awful lot more volunteers in Scotland than we count, because people volunteer to do things all the time and do not even realise that they are volunteers. However, there are organisations that provide vital public services and need the funding, partnership agreements and compacts that allow them to operate. The Parliament has been in existence for six years and we have talked away about core funding, three-year programmes and the fact that voluntary organisations need the guarantee of continuing funding, but none of that is happening. In May last year, the minister said that core funding was no longer an issue because we were moving on to full cost recovery. When on earth will that happen?
I am also interested in ProjectScotland, which I mentioned in last year's debate. It is marvellous. The minister said today that ProjectScotland is being focused on less well-off young people. I ask him to tell me how that is happening. Do we have in place something that allows them to go overseas and volunteer for a year even though they do not have the support network to fall back on in a family, a home or some kind of funding? Are we examining the benefit system and finding ways to allow them to achieve such things? I have spoken to young people in Motherwell who would love to go overseas and do international development work but, if they are homeless, on benefit and do not have the support network that much more fortunate young people have, it is just a pipe dream.
The minister says that, through Jobcentre Plus, we are building up support networks for those who are less well-off to enable them to volunteer. How is that being done and what type of people are benefiting from the initiative? Is an agreement on benefits in place to allow people to volunteer as a step towards employment in time?
I end by making a plea for the small organisations, which Donald Gorrie mentioned. They do very good work on a small scale but are told that there is no point in their applying for more lottery funding if they carry on doing the same thing—that is on the Community Fund website. For some people who need support, innovation is not good, because they like the familiar and like to continue with what they have. That must be acknowledged.
I share some of Christine Grahame's and Linda Fabiani's sentiments about the format of the debate. I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject, but I wish that we had a little more focus to the format. I hope that the Parliamentary Bureau did not make the decision to hold such a debate in the expectation that members would be elsewhere in the country and would not want to miss a vote. I am sure that it did not.
We keep debating volunteering year after year, and it is right that we should do so in one format or another because volunteers keep volunteering year and after year. The Parliament must maintain its interest in that work and its recognition of it.
In last year's debate, I mentioned a few aspects of my experience of volunteering, such as with recycling projects. The Executive should be commended for reaching its recycling targets, but I am sceptical about whether it would have done so without people such as the community activists who got doorstep recycling projects up and running before anybody else caught up during the many years when recycling was recognised by few but the voluntary sector. Those activists are still diverting much waste from landfill. Many furniture recycling projects not only divert waste from landfill but ensure that, rather than junk them and buy new, we get more use out of our resources.
I also mentioned the volunteers in sexual health in the statutory sector and the voluntary sector whose work helps the Executive to hit its targets and meet its sexual health strategy priorities.
I touched on youth work, which has far more to contribute to the Executive's antisocial behaviour agenda than is often acknowledged as it helps to develop young people as active citizens. The fact that volunteers and the voluntary sector do so much to help the Executive meet its targets should be acknowledged. The best way to do that is to ensure that volunteers and the voluntary sector do not feel that they are the poor relation. We need to ensure that they are given the same level of support and recognition as the statutory sector and other public service providers.
There are a few areas in which we could do better. I hope that the Executive will address some of them when it works on its strategy. I am sure that members of all parties acknowledge that many asylum seekers who come to our country, whose interests we represent just as much as we do those of people with citizenship, are skilled, articulate, passionate and motivated. It is essential that they do not lose those qualities and the self-esteem that allows them to use them, regardless of whether they are granted asylum, refugee status or permission to stay. If they return to their country of origin, we have to equip them with the skills and ability to make a go of it. If they stay here, we want to ensure that they are able to contribute fully to our society, which many of them want passionately to do. I wish that we in this Parliament were able to give them the opportunity to work, but we can give them the opportunity to volunteer and make use of and expand their skills.
We also have to ensure that we give people the time and support to combine volunteering with a working life. I hope that the Executive is talking to its colleagues at Westminster about welfare reform. If we are looking—as we should—to encourage people to move into work if they are ready and able to after being on benefit for a long time, a stepping stone of volunteering can be of great use. I hope that the Westminster Government acknowledges that the gradual transition back into work should be supported.
I make no apology for mentioning the volunteers to whom I am closest, as I am sure are many members: the political party activists who are part of a vibrant volunteering democratic culture. Whether they are volunteering this week in Dunfermline or anywhere else, we should congratulate them all.
I welcome this morning's debate, not only as a timely reminder of the importance of the voluntary sector and of volunteering to our country, but as an opportunity to endorse and refresh our commitment to volunteering. I also welcome a troupe of Boys Brigade from my constituency—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer—
Yes. I have noticed that Mr Macintosh's microphone has not come on and I wonder whether the sound engineer could connect him now.
Should I move to the next seat?
Yes, you should move to the connected microphone and probably begin again, Mr Macintosh. I do not know whether the official reporters caught your first remarks, but I am sure that the public in the gallery will have struggled to do so.
It is worth saying twice, Presiding Officer.
I welcome this morning's debate because it reminds us of the importance of volunteering and gives us an opportunity to refresh and endorse our commitment to volunteering. I want to extend a welcome to a Boys Brigade troupe, who I know have just arrived downstairs. They are an example of community spirit and are supported by volunteers in Barrhead in my constituency.
The point that I want to make, which many members have also made, is that it is vital to support the voluntary sector not just with words but with funding. I am particularly concerned that we are both consistent and fair in the application of that funding.
I will give a couple of examples of the difficulty the voluntary sector faces. Members might be familiar with the questions that have been raised about the scout facility called Lapwing Lodge in my constituency, not least because of the members' business debate that Bruce McFee initiated last year. It is an old-fashioned scout camping facility that is well used not just by a range of uniformed organisations but more broadly by groups and individuals throughout the community. It desperately needs upgrading and modernisation.
I do not believe that any of us who has taken the time to visit Lapwing would argue that it should not qualify for some form of public support. Unfortunately, it does not qualify. I will not repeat all the arguments and explanations for that. Although my local authority has offered a substantial contribution, the lodge has, so far, failed to meet the criteria laid down for lottery, Executive and other public sector grants, despite its being, on the face of it, a deserving cause.
One of the comments made by the applicants, which has stayed with me, is that many of the voluntary sector grants that are awarded, particularly through the lottery, go to newly formed organisations that turn out to be unsustainable and cease to exist after a couple of years. That point is similar to one Donald Gorrie and other members made. The approach hides a complex process of accountability, but I appreciate fully why it rankles with long-established youth uniformed organisations that have proven their commitment, worth and benefit year after year but struggle to meet the criteria for voluntary sector funding.
The Executive and the public purse will never be able to meet all the demands, but if we can demonstrate consistency, equity and fairness across the board, the disappointment of some will not be further marred by a sense of grievance or injustice.
Voluntary Action, an umbrella organisation for all the voluntary groups in East Renfrewshire, has just built a tremendous new centre for all those groups to use. The funding came from umpteen different sources and the process involved in securing it was long and arduous—and involved several disappointments along the way. How many of us have heard the same story from voluntary groups: too much time is spent filling in forms and applying for funding? How many of us have heard people say that they were led to believe that they would get a grant and put a huge effort into getting it only to be turned down at an advanced stage? Volunteers do not give up their time to be full-time fundraisers and grant chasers, but that is what can happen.
There is not enough time for me to expand on other examples and issues that I want to highlight. I mention in passing the uncertainty about the future and about long-term support that many voluntary organisations face, even those that work with local authorities. Some organisations have difficulty securing funding from local authorities that fail to recognise the value for money that they can provide.
The good news is that the strategic funding review addresses those difficulties. The Executive has already taken a number of positive steps, from the millions it put into the futurebuilders fund to simple steps such as introducing a common application form for all its grant schemes. The move to three-year funding and further streamlining of the over complex application process is also welcome. I am particularly hopeful that the new funders forum, which will bring together national and local government and voluntary providers, will drive on the process.
We might not meet every demand, but we can apply the principles of consistency, equity and fairness in all our decisions. We have made great strides in that direction and I commend the Executive for its continued support and commitment.
Volunteering is something that we Scots are very good at. It comes naturally to us; it is instinctive within the Scottish character, which embraces an understanding that we have a mutual responsibility and an obligation to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. That view is borne out by the statistics. There are 50,000 voluntary organisations in Scotland, supported by more than 1 million volunteers who put in 9 million hours of unpaid effort each month. That means that, at the average wage level, more than £1 billion-worth of wages do not have to be paid by the state because volunteers successfully provide services and support that, in effect, the state has failed to provide. The first thing that we politicians need to do is give a resounding thank you to Scotland's volunteers. Their contribution to Scotland's economy is massive and their service to the people whom they support is even greater.
One of my favourite times of the year is volunteers week, when, like other members, I am asked to volunteer by a number of local projects. Thus far I have, among other things, helped to deliver meals on wheels in Kirkcudbright and—believe it or not—helped to create new flower beds at Threave gardens near Castle Douglas, which I thoroughly recommend to anyone who is in the area. I have also helped to build a bird hide from which the pupils at Belmont primary school in Stranraer can study the bird life in their gardens. It is probably the only structure I have built that has remained standing four years later. However, pride of place goes to the occasion when I called the bingo numbers at the Millennium centre in Stranraer. I think that I can modestly say that I have a natural flair for that activity and the experience gave me some comfort that there is a career that I might successfully pursue should the electorate ever decide that I need a new one.
Volunteers week serves to highlight the vast range of activities that volunteers undertake. Some 90 per cent of those who are involved in citizens advice bureaux and 53 per cent of museum staff are volunteers. People do not know that. The Museum of Lead Mining at Wanlockhead in my constituency is a unique monument to the incredibly tough lives that the miners led, but I can safely say that it would not exist if it was not for the voluntary effort that is put in. Other members mentioned befriending schemes; prison visitors; drug rehabilitation initiatives; victim support; work with abused women, men and children; our sporting life; our cultural life; and our environment. All of those and more would be considerably the poorer without the input of volunteers, which is often unsung and taken for granted.
I endorse and support the volunteering strategy and its aims. As members said, it is difficult not to support it. However, I do so with a belief that the correct level of state management of the voluntary sector involves a balance that is difficult to achieve but vital to attain. I will suggest two areas in which the Executive could act to improve the balance. I must be right to do so, because almost every member who has spoken has mentioned them. The first is funding—not the amount, but the timescale and the process. All too often, applications for funding, if they are approved, result in a three-year package. The funded body spends the first year becoming established, the second year carrying out the work it was established to do and the third year trying to secure further funding to guarantee survival. Surely that is not the best way either to ensure the best return on taxpayers' input or to make the best use of volunteers' efforts.
The second area that is ripe for improvement is the process that is required by Disclosure Scotland. It is sad that the process is required at all, but it is necessary. The complex processes that we have had since the introduction of disclosure have put some people off volunteering and made recruitment to voluntary organisations much harder. I welcome the commitment that the Minister for Education and Young People made in yesterday's debate to simplify the process and end the ridiculous requirement for multiple disclosures. Those changes cannot come soon enough. They will give a welcome boost to volunteers' morale and bring an overdue element of common sense to a process that no one wants but which is forced upon us by some of the darker elements in society.
I am interested in the commendably compact brief that Volunteer Development Scotland issued. As well as being a perfect example of how to present a brief to MSPs, it contains a subtle message. It says, "Please continue to support us along the lines of the volunteering strategy. Please help us to build on the positive base from which we start in Scotland. Please continue to debate what Parliament can do, with others, to energise the latent resources of the people of Scotland." However, it also seems to state an unwritten message: "Beyond that, please keep your hands off and let us independently do what we do best: volunteer, with minimal interference, to the huge benefit of our country and our citizens."
The Scottish Socialist Party welcomes this morning's debate on volunteering because it gives us an opportunity to think about and discuss the many thousands of people in Scotland who give their time to help others, who could be close to home, many miles away or even on other continents. However, I agree with Christine Grahame's remarks about the nature and focus of the debate and I hope that the Minister for Communities will take those concerns on board.
Recent disasters such as the tsunami and the earthquake in Pakistan threw on to our television screens individuals and organisations who work around the clock to ensure that assistance reaches those in desperate need. Food, blankets, medicines and clothing are collected, packaged and delivered to other parts of the world. Volunteers also provide crucial support for people here in Scotland.
Like others in the chamber, I worked as a volunteer. I was an advocate at Equal Say and I worked as a volunteer councillor at ChildLine Scotland. I was subsequently employed as a supervisor at ChildLine Scotland. If people do not already know what that entails, they should be made aware of what is involved, how that relates to funding and where the problems lie.
Voluntary organisations train their volunteers to do their jobs. Equal Say and ChildLine delivered training that stood me in good stead for my job as an MSP. For example, the training gave me the ability to assist people who are in pain, people who are afraid and folk who are in a crisis and have no one else to turn to. MSPs will recognise those situations. I am extremely privileged to have the tools to know what to say and do at a time of crisis and I was given those skills by my trainers at ChildLine.
I was also given a unique insight into the difficulties that young people face. I learned how to handle casework, how to deal with paperwork, how to deal with the pain of a desperate child and how to seek appropriate help. My self-esteem and confidence improved enormously during the process. I am eternally grateful to ChildLine for that training, which gave me strings to my bow that I would not otherwise have had. However, the training took 12 weeks and it cost £1,500 to deliver. What did ChildLine get in return? I worked on the phone lines for a time and I stayed on as a supervisor, but then I moved on. A new volunteer had to go through the training and take my place and ChildLine incurred training costs again.
The turnover of volunteers costs organisations such as ChildLine and Equal Say a fortune and there is little or no recognition that people are being trained and given skills and confidence that enable them to participate in society. Workplaces benefit from that, as do society and the economy. Voluntary organisations provide a service to the child on the phone or the starving and cold in Pakistan but they also develop the skills of volunteers. I want us to recognise that those skills are transferable.
As Linda Fabiani pointed out, the voluntary sector comprises a huge network of organisations from global charities to local groups. Their work includes child care, education, youth work, care of the elderly, anti-poverty initiatives and the environmental initiatives that Patrick Harvie mentioned. The list of those who benefit is endless. The voluntary sector holds civic society together and we would grind to a standstill without its work and support.
When we praise volunteers, we must also recognise that the voluntary sector faces a constant battle for funding and resources. That has been said time and time again. I want the minister to hear it and to respond to it. Annually reviewed funding packages leave organisations and groups in a precarious situation and can affect volunteers' motivation. It has to be said that employees in the voluntary sector suffer from lower pay than their counterparts in the public sector.
We must not simply pat volunteers on the back; our job is to ensure that organisations that provide vital support and training have secure funding that fully recognises the vital role that they play in our society. The Scottish Executive should today make a commitment to ease the precarious nature of funding by establishing a four-year minimum funding period for all publicly funded projects and ensuring that funding takes account of inflation and staff training costs. That would surely reduce the atmosphere of uncertainty that constantly surrounds projects that are funded year to year.
Many members have said that they visit organisations and meet brilliant volunteers and employees, only to hear that some of those people may lose their jobs soon and that the services may be lost. The voluntary sector should seek not to duplicate services that local government should resource and provide. In recognising the people who give so much for others, we should promise those folk and those organisations support, security, respect and funding. That would be a true vote of thanks and support. It is incumbent on us to make that promise.
In his opening remarks, the minister said that the potential is limitless. That is not true: the future of many essential organisations hangs in the balance. The limits are therefore clear.
In preparing for the debate, I was taken by an article in a Holyrood magazine supplement. It listed the five things that volunteering is not. It is not a cheap option, as it requires resources, commitment and skilled management, and I commend Rosie Kane for discussing those. Volunteering is not amateurish, as many volunteers are highly skilled, with a wealth of experience. It is not a minority activity, as research indicates that more than 1.5 million people are involved. Volunteering is not unchanging, as it continually affects and is affected by change in society. It is not a cliché or a stereotype, but incredibly diverse. Those descriptions are why, in a debate such as this, Parliament should not deal in clichés, platitudes or patronising pats on the back, well-deserved though a pat on the back may be. Volunteers in Scotland look to the Parliament to tackle real and difficult practicalities. Several members mentioned funding and disclosure, which I will come back to later. We have responsibilities; we have to make things easier for volunteers. We have to remove the barriers. That is the test of whether we are doing our job.
Fantastic volunteering work is being done. Only last night we had a debate about the Linlithgow primary school pupils who act as tour guides and take people round Linlithgow Palace. That is a great example of the positive role that young people can play in volunteering. I agree with Patrick Harvie that volunteering is the flip-side of the antisocial behaviour argument. The involvement of young people in positive aspects of life means that they can make a constructive contribution well into the future.
I want to touch on three areas: young people; the elderly; and disclosure. I am interested in ProjectScotland, and I wish it well. I am interested in the minister's focus on involving those from more deprived areas in ProjectScotland. He also said that Scotland is the first area in the UK to develop a national volunteering programme. I recognise David Cameron's belated entry into the debate; he wants to have forced volunteers, which is a contradiction; national social service is different from volunteering. However, I am pleased that the idea has raised its head. Interestingly, Gordon Brown and David Blunkett have talked about young people volunteering. They are considering the possibility that young people who want to go to university, but have a gap year, will have their tuition fees paid if they volunteer. That would be interesting, bearing it in mind that we are not meant to have tuition fees in Scotland, although we have the graduate endowment fee. Can the minister tell us whether there will be any Barnett consequentials should the UK scheme go ahead, and if so, whether we could use some to pay off the graduate endowment fee for students who volunteer in their gap year?
I welcome the fact that the focus may be on those from more deprived areas becoming involved in ProjectScotland. If that is the case, it is important that we know that that is where the focus is. It is well and good that any Barnett consequentials should go into that, especially if it is explained why. Again, that is something practical that the Parliament should discuss. We should consider paying graduate endowment fees for those who volunteer in a gap year before they go to university. That is a practical and simple move that we should debate. If we want to put those resources elsewhere, we should debate that as well.
A lot of voluntary work is done in children's services and there is a huge opportunity to combine that and the work that is done with the elderly. Developing cross-generational understanding has a lot of good will. Karen Whitefield had a debate about the good work that the older generations do with the younger in her constituency. That work can generate huge synergy and we should pursue it.
Many of us have complained for many years about disclosure. The Education Committee's child protection inquiry raised some of those concerns. I welcome the fact that people who work in more than one children's sector will have to go through the disclosure process only once. There will be organisational issues about how all the voluntary organisations with which they work will then be notified if there were a change in their circumstances. When the Bichard legislation comes to the Parliament, we should look at disclosure through the lens of the volunteer to ensure that we make it simple, operational and safe. We must have realistic risk. The best way to prevent young people from being at risk is to ensure that there are well-organised youth organisations. We want young people to participate in society, not hang around the streets. One way of ensuring that is to champion the idea, but we need to ensure that we have a robust disclosure mechanism that protects our children and also makes volunteering risk averse for those who want to do it.
There was some question in the early part of the debate as to whether this was a constructive or an appropriate time to debate volunteering. Although I am concerned that no great announcements were made, it is has been a practical and sensible way to use an hour of our time. I have found the debate reassuring.
My concern has always been to ensure that we appreciate all that the voluntary sector contributes. I remember hearing Carolyn Leckie speak in a previous debate and heaping great praise on the voluntary project that was under discussion, but she suggested that, ultimately, the public sector is always better than the voluntary sector. Rosie Kane said that again today about certain projects. I have never taken that view. I continue to believe that the voluntary sector is capable of providing services as good as—if not better than—those of the public sector. That is why it is important that we all accept that not only is the voluntary sector here to stay, but it is something that we should encourage, fund and develop where possible. I took from Malcolm Chilsholm's speech that he believes that too. He certainly said nothing to discourage me in that belief. That is why I take something positive from the debate.
However, several serious and significant points have been raised to which I will add my support. The first concerns funding. Many of the voluntary sector projects that we all visit in our constituencies face the same problem: three-year funding. Many of them depend on finding grants, and they live from one year to the next without knowing whether they will be able to continue. I regularly visit Angus young carers' project in Arbroath. That is an incredibly worthy organisation, but it never knows where its funding for the year after next will come from. For that reason, I have the greatest sympathy with much of what Donald Gorrie said about funding.
Alex Fergusson was perfectly right to say that volunteering makes a major economic contribution. Volunteers freely give billions of pounds worth of effort. Without them, the country would be a lot worse off. However, there continues to be a problem in encouraging people to become involved in volunteering, particularly those who are less well off, unemployed or on benefits. Consequently, because some areas in Scotland are better off than others, there are certain areas in which there remains a shortage of volunteers.
That takes us to some of the things that David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party, recently said about volunteering. He is no new convert to the concept of volunteering. In fact, through his personal circumstances, David Cameron has been involved with voluntary organisations for many years. That is why he has become highly motivated by the idea that volunteering should be encouraged. Listening to the minister's opening speech, it is clear that many of the things that David Cameron is talking about in the south are already further along the road in Scotland than they are in England.
However, we must address the key issues, which perhaps need to be dealt with in the south as well. As many have said in the debate, we must ensure that volunteering provides those who have had health difficulties or who have been unemployed with a stepping stone—as Patrick Harvie said—back into work. However, that means that there must be a more understanding attitude towards the payment of benefits, particularly unemployment benefit. The combination of being on benefits and doing voluntary work should be as smooth as possible. Volunteering should not be seen, as it is by many in difficult circumstances, as a barrier to continuing to claim benefits.
The debate has been extremely useful. I have heard some positive contributions, not least from the minister, and I support the position that he set out. I hope that the debate will encourage others in the chamber to support their local voluntary organisations and to bring the message of those organisations back here in future.
When I saw that we were going to debate volunteering, I and others, not just in my party, thought that this was an ideal opportunity to question ministers on core funding and strategic funding. I am sorry that the ministers seem more interested in the Tory plot over there than they are in the speeches, but perhaps that tells us something about the ministers. We come here to debate and we expect answers and announcements from the Executive; it is not about platitudes or patting people on the back. I am not being dismissive of volunteers; I am saying to the ministers that they should take volunteering much more seriously. It has been mentioned throughout the debate that volunteers come to us every other day about core funding. We want answers. Here is a ministerial statement, but no motion on which to vote. We are speaking in a debate that gives no answers to people out there. The Executive should consider closely its agenda and not waste the Parliament's time on a debate such as this, when a members' business debate on volunteering would have had the same outcome.
I thought that there might have been consensus in the debate, but the Tories have broken it. If Mr Cameron wanted his name constantly mentioned here, why did he not stand for the Scottish Parliament? It is a disgrace that the Tories mention Mr Cameron. On behalf of the many thousands of volunteers in Scotland who want an answer from the Executive, the Tories should tell Mr Cameron to stand for the Scottish Parliament and to stop electioneering. The Tories are no better than the Executive.
As other members have said, we must celebrate volunteering, but it is also important to give volunteers something to celebrate. Core funding has been raised time and again in the debate by members from all parties. I would like the minister to answer a couple of questions on funding. Strategic funding was first mentioned in 2000; then the Executive said that it hoped to report back in 2004. Now, six years down the line, we have the minister's admission that
"The Strategic Funding Review aims to improve the availability"
of funding, but that it
"will be implemented over the next year to 18 months."
Will the minister be more specific about the date? We have waited six years, only be told that the plan
"will be implemented over the next year to 18 months."
The volunteers out there want to know an exact date and they want to know exactly what is happening with strategic funding. That is what debates in the Parliament are all about: getting answers, not platitudes.
I commend the minister for considering older people in volunteering. Although, quite rightly, he mentioned youth volunteers throughout his speech—the aim of ProjectScotland is to encourage young people to begin volunteering—we all know that the vast majority of volunteers are older people. We have an ageing population and a golden opportunity to produce a strategy, so I welcome the minister's announcement that he will produce a paper. I have raised it time and again with the minister, while older volunteers have also asked for the matter to be addressed. However, we do not have a date for that report either. That makes two issues for which no date has been given: the strategic funding review and the report on a strategy for older volunteers. I would like answers on those issues.
We have missed out another great swathe of the population: disabled volunteers. The report on volunteering and disability is good; I hope that the minister will try to take its recommendations further, one of which is as simple as improving access to buildings to enable disabled people to volunteer. Another recommendation concerns engaging in information. Those are two core issues that are raised in the report—I hope that the minister will take them up.
We welcome and celebrate volunteering, but it must not replace core services. We must take it on board that that is happening in various areas. The Executive is making cuts to councils left, right and centre, and some core services that are run by councils, such as after-school care, are having to be taken over by volunteers. If that is the Executive's approach to volunteering, we will struggle dearly to get more people to volunteer. People volunteer because they get great pleasure out of it and learn from it; they do not want to be used to replace core services. I would like answers, not only to my questions but to those of other members.
We can divide the debate into two parts. First, there were the sensible, practical and thoughtful contributions on the hard issues for the voluntary sector. Secondly, however, there were the contributions that basically said two things at the same time: that we should not be having the debate and that there are lots of hard things to be said in the debate. Christine Grahame ought to try to be a little more consistent. She should not say that we should be debating something else, then say that there are lots of things to debate. The definition of a debate should not hinge on whether there is a motion. Anybody who knows the Scottish Executive will know that it is perfectly capable of having a robust, hard and challenging discussion without a motion at the end of it.
There is no focus.
Then we have a responsibility to give it focus. I am grateful that others in the chamber have managed to do that. [Interruption.]
The minister is not taking an intervention.
I wish to say something on a technical point. The SNP may wish to raise with its representatives in the Parliamentary Bureau whether there should be a subject debate. Today's debate was agreed by the bureau. The Executive members of the bureau did not insist that there should not be a motion. It is a red herring on Christine Grahame's part to raise that point.
I want to reflect on some of the hard issues that Christine Grahame could have raised and that we could recognise in relation to challenging—
The minister will not take an intervention.
Not from a sedentary position, Ms Grahame.
I wish to make a general point about volunteering. People talk about platitudes and about being patronising and so on, but there is a hard political issue here, and there are dividing lines on it in the chamber. There was a time when I would have argued that volunteering is nothing to do with Government or the state; that the state should provide and it should be a matter for the public sector to deliver for people. However, that view flew in the face of the Executive's experience and our understanding that people volunteer because it is something that they want to do. Not only can volunteers work where the state does not choose to work, but they can go to places that the state cannot reach.
Will the minister give way?
I ask Fiona Hyslop to let me make progress.
I had the privilege of visiting the Caladh Trust on Uist, which is a project that provides a service that the state is incapable of providing. Its volunteers did not talk to me about funding, but about the initiatives that the trust has developed. The vast majority of its funding does not come from the state. Many voluntary bodies do not talk simply about funding. When we are talking about volunteering we have to be careful that we go beyond the important and relevant debate about funding and develop it further.
Will the minister give way?
If the member will let me progress, I will take her point.
We should recognise the hard questions that have been raised, such as how services are delivered and what the voluntary sector consists of. However, people should be consistent. They should not say that they welcome the voluntary sector then define social rented housing as privatisation. We have to ask a hard question: to what extent can the state control a sector that develops from human instinct? What level of state intervention should there be? I accept that an interesting and challenging question arises about the balance between funding innovation and funding success. We are wrestling with that, because we realise that the voluntary sector and volunteers can be innovative. We must have a place for that, but we must also have a place for successful projects.
There are now record levels of funding for the voluntary sector, which I am sure Fiona Hyslop will welcome.
That is interesting. Is the minister acknowledging that the Executive has only belatedly recognised the importance of volunteering? The SNP has acknowledged for some time that volunteering is essential, as have the Conservatives, to be fair. I see that the Minister for Education and Young People is in the chamber, so I point out that we should remember that the voluntary sector provides a huge number of children's services, which will now be subject to the joint inspections that are to be introduced. Why has the rest of Scotland had to wait while, by the deputy minister's admission, the Executive has played catch-up on the importance of volunteering?
I was reflecting on my 30-year journey as a political activist. Some members have not yet made such a journey. Since devolution, we have shown that we understand that Government should track and support innovation rather than impose it from the centre, and thereby support local communities. The centralists in the Parliament may wish to reflect on that. The Executive has embraced that idea and the country has made progress on that journey.
A false division can be made between big and small organisations. It is possible to have a volunteering strategy that recognises the success of ProjectScotland and at the same time accepts that we must not drive out small organisations through overwieldy and overburdensome regulation. There has been movement on that issue in relation to Disclosure Scotland and the central registered body in Scotland. The SNP is trying to knock down a straw man, because the Executive has made progress.
Surely the minister accepts that we acknowledge the movement on Disclosure Scotland and are delighted with it, although it has taken a bit longer than we hoped. The question that I asked earlier was about what has happened to the strategic funding review, for which we have waited for six years. That was a straightforward point for the minister to address, but she has not done so.
As the member has been harassing me to take an intervention, I will respond to that. We recognise the importance of a strategic funding review and we are moving to implementation of that following the publication of the joint action plan. Nobody thinks that we should not move on that, but we have to move at the same pace as all the partners, which include the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the SCVO and the wider public and voluntary sectors. It has not taken six years—we have already made a great deal of progress. As I said, we are moving to change and slim down the grant application process. I am sure that all members accept that we do not want to create an industry that rewards those who know how to fill in application forms rather than those who can support developments.
As Cathy Peattie said, volunteering is about much more than the voluntary sector. Research from a variety of sources has shown consistently that about 25 per cent of people who volunteer say that they do so in the public sector. Volunteers work with local councils to make life better for vulnerable people such as children, older people and people with learning disabilities. We have a recognised Executive initiative in community planning to harness volunteers' energy to ensure that decisions about local communities are made by those communities.
Mary Scanlon mentioned citizens advice bureaux. We recognise their role and I accept the point that she made about communication systems, but we must put that in the context of the highest-ever funding for the voluntary sector. We should work round the system rather than expecting those who are in need to do so. However, we must recognise that, even though we want to make the disclosure process easier, address the central registered body in Scotland and make more funding available, there will still be hard questions about where the money goes. We must have public accountability in relation to disclosure. We must have confidence in the system so that vulnerable people are not made more vulnerable. We accept that tension and we want to work together to find solutions to it.
We should not listen to the SNP members with the half-empty glasses who say that nothing has been done. They sit passively and say that we need to do this and that, but the fact is that the Executive is addressing the hard issues in partnership with the voluntary sector and local communities and a great deal more will be done. We understand that an active voluntary sector and active volunteers are challenging. Volunteers are not sitting passively waiting for things to happen; instead, throughout Scotland, they are contributing more and more, to the benefit of the people of this country.