Voluntary Sector
This morning's business is a Social Justice Committee debate on motion S1M-3063, in the name of the convener, Johann Lamont, on the committee's inquiry into the voluntary sector.
I begin with something of an apology. I am suffering from a bad cold this morning. Although I thought that I would embrace the notion of having 20 minutes to speak rather than my usual four, when I have to speak like a steam train to get through the business, I am now beginning to feel rather wonky—I think that that is the phrase. I apologise in advance for any woolly words, and assure members that those woolly words do not reflect woolly thinking on the part of the committee but are entirely my own responsibility.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the Social Justice Committee's report to the Scottish Parliament and trust that it will provide important information, food for thought and challenges to all those who are involved in and with the voluntary sector. As the Presiding Officer mentioned, we have a new Minister for Social Justice and I take this opportunity to congratulate Margaret Curran on her new role and to congratulate and welcome Hugh Henry as the new Deputy Minister for Social Justice. I look forward to having the same productive working relationship with him that we have had with previous ministers and deputy ministers.
I thank the clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre, the official report and all those who supported the development of the report. I also thank all those who gave evidence and contributed to the inquiry, both formally and informally.
The aim of the report was to establish the key issues facing the voluntary sector in Scotland in 2001, to examine the response of the Scottish Executive and others to those issues, and to report and make recommendations, as appropriate, to the Parliament. The report of the inquiry was intended to update committee members and the Parliament as a whole on the current position of the voluntary sector in Scotland, to provide a snapshot of the voluntary sector upon which the committee could base future work, and to identify key issues and recommendations to be addressed by the Scottish Executive and key players in the voluntary sector. I trust that people will find that the report matches up to those aims and objectives.
I want to say something about the process by which we undertook our inquiry. We did not seek to take evidence from only the key players in the voluntary sector and the Executive—from organisations such as the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and key figures such as Jean McFadden—although their contribution was welcome. We also sought to reflect in our evidence taking the diversity of the voluntary sector that we often celebrate. We met a range of organisations throughout Scotland by setting up meetings in each of the eight regions, determined as we were to ensure that that diversity could be reflected in what we heard from people in the voluntary sector.
I thank the councils for voluntary services for facilitating those meetings, and all those who were engaged in the process. I acknowledge the consensual approach of committee members, who did not feel it necessary to ensure that all political parties were represented at each of those meetings, but were willing to delegate responsibility to two or three members. It was clear that all the committee members who were involved saw themselves as taking part in those meetings on behalf of the committee rather than pursuing the agenda that they might have pursued at other times. I congratulate all committee members who were involved in that process. I conducted an inquiry in my constituency, modelled on the same approach of going out and contacting local communities. I found that useful and I believe that our approach was very much in line with the vision of an open and transparent Parliament that we often hear about.
Reflecting on the evidence that we gathered, particularly at local level, we were struck by a number of things. We were struck by the willingness of all to engage in the process, because of their commitment to the sector and, perhaps more important, because of their commitment to the individual areas of work in which they were involved. We were also struck by the huge energy of those who were represented and by what they had to say and what they wanted to communicate about the key role that they clearly play in their local communities. The most compelling factor in the evidence gathering was the consistency of comments across the country—in rural areas, in urban areas and everywhere in between—about the sector's key priorities and frustrations. The report is intended to reflect the depth of evidence and, in the priority that it gives to individual recommendations, it seeks to reflect the consistency of comments and concerns.
I cannot comment on all the points that are made in the report, but I am sure that all members are now extremely familiar with it. I shall select a few points for comment and I am sure that other members will highlight areas that are of importance to them.
I have no doubt that the experience of everyone in this chamber as an elected member will be the same as my own. In going about the business of engaging with our constituents, in pursuing issues in our constituencies and in seeking to represent our constituents, we have made contact with and worked with the voluntary sector in all its splendid diversity. There is no doubt that the voluntary sector is in an important position to deliver a social justice agenda. Indeed, voluntary organisations have proved that they have a key role in developing appropriate solutions to many of the problems that face our communities. We wish to celebrate that diversity and the capacity of the sector to drive policy developments. We want to recognise that the voluntary sector is very often ahead of the agenda in seeking solutions to problems in our communities.
Much of our current social justice agenda takes an approach that has been developed from the experience of people in local communities. Child care is a key example of that. Child care provision emerged from what was needed locally and has become the norm in relation to what the Scottish Executive and others see as important.
The report highlights key issues. We had an interesting session on charity law reform, when we heard evidence from Jean McFadden. It is the committee's view that it is essential that that matter is pursued, and we would like a commitment from the Executive and a timetable for addressing the points that are made in the report.
Important work was done on the social economy review, and again we expect the Executive to identify a timetable for moving that review onward. Our commitment to the importance of the social economy review is reflected in our view that there should be recognition of where the voluntary sector and the co-operative and mutual sector meet. In any review of the social economy, important work should be done on the role of the co-operative and mutual sector. Although that sector is distinct from the voluntary sector, they clearly impact one upon the other and we would like a commitment from the Executive to consider that relationship in the review.
The strength of the voluntary sector is that many groups have evolved directly from an identification of local needs. The process is not top down, and that must be recognised in relationships between the voluntary sector and local authorities, other funding partners and the Scottish Executive. It is very much the view of the committee that those partnerships must be developed out of mutual respect. In our view, it is not appropriate for the Scottish Executive, or any other funding organisation, to use the voluntary sector as a means only of delivering its own agenda. Voluntary organisations should have a role in determining that agenda in the first place, particularly given their track record of being able to understand the key issues in their communities or areas of interest.
In acknowledging the role of the voluntary sector, we must ensure that we do not reduce the voluntary sector simply to being another service provider. In embracing the voluntary sector, we must ensure that we do not squeeze the life-blood out of it. For example, in seeking a more businesslike approach from those who are involved in voluntary child care, we may lose the flexibility that made that child care provision work for local communities and individual families. In demanding standards in training and regulations—which we all agree are necessary—it is essential that we do not simply develop a professionalisation of the voluntary sector that drives away volunteers and loses the very heart of what the voluntary sector contributes to our communities.
Many groups and organisations commented on the problems of consultation. We welcome real partnership, but it is clearly important that consultation, too, is real and not tokenistic. There must be an opportunity for feedback and what is said must be taken on board in a real way. If we think that the voluntary sector has something serious to say, consultation is all the more important. Real consultation makes it more likely that what comes out of the other end of the process will reflect what is actually needed in local communities. The committee recognises that we must avoid paralysis by consultation. Organisations that are already stretched and strained may see consultation only as a burden and not as a benefit.
It will be no surprise that the issue that was constantly raised and highlighted in our evidence taking and work was funding. There was a desire and demand at the heart of the discussion for honesty on all sides about what can be delivered with the moneys that are provided. There was a sense that sometimes there was a desire to squeeze a dividend—a wee bit extra—out of the money that was given. There needs to be honesty about the training that is required and its cost implications. It is inappropriate for organisations not to have funding security. If important responsibility for service delivery is delegated to the voluntary sector, it is crucial that security is provided to allow organisations to plan, especially as we have made a commitment to giving the voluntary sector a key role in planning. The sector's opportunity to deliver a service must be built on strong foundations. I am sure that all members have horror stories of organisations that seek to pay their staff through having raffles. If something is unacceptable in the public sector, it should be unacceptable in the voluntary sector.
Another key issue in respect of funding relates to the frustration that is felt at the need for voluntary organisations persistently to reinvent the wheel. We must be clear. The importance of innovation is recognised and the voluntary sector can be an important test-bed for trying out new ideas and opportunities—indeed, the voluntary sector has an excellent record in that respect. However, it is nonsense that effective organisations should have to recreate and reinvent themselves and attach innovative approaches to effective work to secure new funding. There must be a means of getting the balance right.
On that point, and on what the member said about a process that is not top down but bottom up, does she agree that there is an urgent need for the sharing of best practice and good projects so that we do not continue to reinvent the wheel? We must stimulate or help to stimulate a bottom-up process so that coverage is not patchy. It should not be good in some areas and not so good in other areas.
I absolutely agree. We have all experienced the frustration of tackling problems or issues in our communities as if no one has ever tackled them before—indeed, we may have started processes that have been proven to be weak elsewhere. I agree that the communication of good practice must be supported. Perhaps if there were less emphasis in funding on what is new, we could build up confidence around good practice. I emphasise that the voluntary sector is an important sector in which to test out new ideas. One is not absolutely thirled to such ideas at a later stage as a result of committing oneself to an approach.
We acknowledge the role of the voluntary sector in rural areas. Other members have more detailed knowledge of such work than I do, but it is clear that there are specific difficulties in rural areas in sustaining, accessing and benefiting from the voluntary sector. Our report reflects the fact that much work needs to be done in that respect. It also acknowledges that many problems relating to accessibility, isolation and the capacity and confidence to volunteer are replicated in some of our most urban, deprived areas. There are issues relating to ensuring that we can engage as many of our communities as possible. The issue involves not simply geography but other exclusion issues.
Does Johann Lamont agree that rural poverty and deprivation are often exacerbated by the isolation of people from specific communities? In more urban areas, many more people live together and can help to support one another. In rural areas, there is the added perspective of isolation.
I do not want to diminish the importance of rural poverty, but I am not sure whether the argument is about the experience of poverty in one community as opposed to that in another. The issues relate to poverty. In urban areas, it might be contended that, where density of poverty, exclusion, problems with transport links and few people who are able to work exist, a different process operates. I agree that there are issues around rural poverty and accessing help, which our report sought to address.
I am happy to say that I will finish well ahead of time. The voluntary sector deserves more than cosy words—it deserves our respect. It is not the equivalent of the Women's Guild, or a cosy, let-us-all-get-together-and-have-a-hug sector. Many people who are engaged in the voluntary sector are involved in the hardest work and deal with the most difficult problems. They support people who are in the most difficult circumstances. People who go into volunteering activity do not do so because they think that it might be a good thing. They may do so because they have received direct benefit from other people giving of themselves for no other reason than that something needed to be done, whether in Marie Curie Cancer Care or any other organisation. People are involved for many reasons, which are not always easy. The voluntary sector deserves recognition for the hard job that it does in difficult circumstances. We should acknowledge and celebrate the importance of its work in our communities.
We should not patronise those who work in the voluntary sector, but build on the work that has been done and the work that has proven to be effective. We should take seriously what the voluntary sector in Scotland told us in its clear voice in giving evidence, particularly in relation to funding. The sector has a right to stable, realistic and consistent funding, not just for the opportunity to innovate, but because of its capacity to consolidate.
We must build trust and an understanding of the pressures on the voluntary sector that are the result of regulation and training. We agree with the need for regulation and training, but we must acknowledge the problem and listen when what has been decided begins to have an adverse effect on communities. Local voluntary activists in my constituency have reported to me their anxieties that the level of regulation and training may mean that people will walk away. People in my community will be devastated if groups that are supported in that community lose important activists. There must be real engagement with such issues.
A voluntary sector that can be a significant engine room for the social justice agenda must be allowed. It should not only carry out our agenda, but develop and shape that agenda. That will benefit all our communities—rural and urban and those that are in between.
I thank all those who were involved in the report. I trust that all those who read it with interest will take on board what it says and adopt its points where they have influence. I welcome the Executive's response and commend the report to the chamber.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Social Justice Committee's 1st Report 2002, Report on Inquiry into the Voluntary Sector (SP Paper 531).
I was going to congratulate Margaret Curran on her ministerial elevation, but she is not here. I congratulate Hugh Henry and welcome him to the social justice portfolio. I do not know whether he has been elevated or if the move is a side step. This is the fourth social justice team, so I wish him the best of luck.
As a member of the Social Justice Committee, I am pleased to have contributed to the report on the voluntary sector. Today, however, I am speaking on behalf of the SNP.
I want to pick up on something that Johann Lamont said, which is crucial to an understanding of the voluntary sector. She spoke about the diversity of the voluntary sector. There are too many perceptions about what the voluntary sector is. People can volunteer for an hour or two every week and do a variety of tasks, but there are also businesses that are run by voluntary committee members, which are also part of the voluntary sector. Being voluntary does not mean being amateur—it means being professional and providing a good service.
Last night, I visited an after-school care project in Blacklaw. For 10 years, the project has been run entirely voluntarily by local people who act as employers and employ staff. The project has been totally self-funded. It should always be borne in mind that the voluntary sector is a professional part of our social economy.
Like colleagues, I received the Scottish Executive's response to the committee's report quite late last night. As the First Minister said, personalities go, but the work carries on. It is unfortunate if the unexpected departure of a minister prevented the earlier distribution of the response, which is important. I note that it took a full two months for the Executive, with all its resources, to respond to the committee's report. Ministers should reflect on the fact that voluntary organisations that have more limited resources must respond to many Executive consultations in two months or less. Johann Lamont said that some of the respondents to the inquiry spoke about consultation fatigue and I think that that question has to be considered.
The Scottish National Party is supportive of the report, the findings of which are broadly in line with what our members have been hearing from volunteers and voluntary organisations for some years. As someone who has spent most of her working life employed in the voluntary sector and working with volunteers, I can see from the report that many of the issues have not changed in the past five, 10 or even 15 years.
I do not have time to cover the full range of issues highlighted in the report but, of course, there are key issues of concern to which I would like to draw attention. The first is the biggy: funding. The distribution of Scottish Executive funds is a major issue for the voluntary sector. Particular concern was expressed about the lack of core funding and continuing funding for successful projects and also about the fact that there is little recognition of the difficulties that are faced by small organisations when the expected funding does not appear. Despite the supportive words in the Executive's response, all the evidence suggests that the situation will continue to be business as usual. Voluntary organisations have experienced yet another delay in their funding this year. I ask the minister to explain why the decisions on section 9 and section 10 grants did not go out until after the beginning of this financial year and urge him to try to understand the effect that uncertainty of funding has on voluntary organisations. It results in worry for and pressure on the volunteers and the service users.
Does Linda Fabiani think that the major problem for most voluntary organisations lies with the Scottish Executive, as she appears to be suggesting, or with health boards, local authorities and other local funders?
I accept the point that Robert Brown is making and I will deal with that element later. However, I point out that good examples and best practice have to come from the top.
Uncertainty in funding can lead to demoralised, overworked and frustrated employees. It is horrifying that many of those who work in the voluntary sector receive redundancy notices as a matter of routine. We heard about that in evidence that was given to the committee. Given that the Executive has an annual underspend of more than double the total funding that it gives to the voluntary sector, surely we can rectify the situation.
The evidence of the voluntary sector is that, even when the Executive wants to give away money, it cannot always do so. Would the minister please do what is now commonly known as a McConnell and pledge that that will never happen again? Voluntary groups should be told before the beginning of the year how much money they will receive and should be able to rely on that money arriving on time.
I found the Executive's response on the mainstreaming of voluntary issues a bit disappointing. I note that the Executive is
"committed to promoting and mainstreaming voluntary sector issues",
but what has been achieved? The response talks about working groups, review groups, an issues unit and a management board—and let us not forget that there is a leaflet that is updated annually. It seems that voluntary issues are no more mainstream now than they were in the Scottish Office. That has to be considered carefully.
If the minister wants evidence that nothing has changed, he need look only at the Executive's response to recommendation 6. The committee said that voluntary groups should not have to reinvent themselves to secure funding, as the convener of the committee and Keith Raffan said earlier this morning. The Executive responds to that point by immediately reinforcing the issue of innovation. It is that concentration on innovation in Scottish Executive funding that forces groups to reinvent themselves. We have to stop talking about innovation and start talking about best practice. Voluntary groups do some things better than the state does. They should be encouraged with consistent funding and a well-developed national and local infrastructure. The evidence is that voluntary organisations innovate because they are responsive to local and individual problems rather than because the public purse dangles a carrot in front of them.
Local authorities now have three-year rolling budgets, so there should be no difficulty in providing a similar arrangement for the funding that local authorities provide to voluntary organisations. I am glad to see that the Executive says in its response that it has accepted that, and I am sure that we can look forward to local authorities providing that peace of mind.
As Robert Brown pointed out, voluntary organisations are funded by other sources, such as health boards, too. Recently, with regard to money from the Community Fund, many voluntary organisations have told me about the difficulties that exist in relation to the innovation that is required to secure those funds, too. I have also heard about the difficulty of getting information when grant applications are turned down. The Community Fund appears to say simply that a project has run its course, is no longer innovative and will receive no more funding. In East Kilbride, a wonderful project for adults with severe learning difficulties had to close its doors because it could get no more funding from the Community Fund. The galling part of that is that the Community Fund has not told the group why that happened. The letter that was sent to the group said something like, "There is no point in your contacting us because we do not have to tell you why we are turning down your further application." I ask the minister to examine some of those problems.
Does Linda Fabiani agree that we must find a way to bring together the statutory bodies, such as health boards and local authorities, so that we can avoid duplication and overlap? I think that we are beginning successfully to do that through initiatives such as drug action teams, which bring together all the interested bodies to ensure that all the funding is focused in the way that it should be for the local area.
Mr Raffan is right. We need to find ways to cut the bureaucracy. We also need to cut out a lot of the buzz phrases. We can talk about community planning and partnership working, but we need to focus our efforts on the people who are getting the service and providing the service and take it from there. How can the needs of those groups best be serviced?
Before leaving the issue of local infrastructure, I want to comment on social inclusion partnerships. Increasingly, those bodies should be a source of joined-up delivery of support to the voluntary sector at a local level. It is important, therefore, that their decision making is transparent and can stand scrutiny. I have asked a series of questions recently on SIPs and it appears that there is still much to do in relation to establishing those bodies. For example, there was no requirement for a register of interest for members of SIP boards before April this year. Having the register is a step forward, but there are still no sanctions for use against anyone who conceals an interest. The burden for keeping the registers has fallen on local authorities, who are obliged to ensure that all members declare any relevant interest.
It is disappointing that the Executive's response to recommendation 8 fails to address the issue of regulation. To be effective, regulation must be transparent, consistent and backed up by sanctions.
SIPs are perceived in different ways by different people and we have all heard anecdotal evidence about them. However, a perception that patronage exists or that there is a lack of accountability is almost as important as the problems themselves, whether they exist or not, because it puts people off and stops people benefiting from the project. The Social Justice Committee is considering examining SIPs more closely. I would welcome that and I would also welcome the Executive more closely examining the regulation of SIPs so that everyone can be confident that they are providing what they should be.
Johann Lamont mentioned the final issue that I want to touch on, which is the importance to the voluntary sector of the review of charity law. In 1999, when this Parliament was in its infancy, Wendy Alexander, who was Minister for Communities at the time, promised a reform of charity law in Scotland, which was welcomed across the chamber. She set up the McFadden commission, which reported a year ago. We now know that the commission rushed out its report unnecessarily and that nothing will happen, it would seem, until after the next election. Jean McFadden was clearly disappointed at the lack of action and was reported in Third Force News as saying:
"If we had known that nothing was going to happen the commission could have had an extra few months putting more details on to some of the recommendations."
She went on to say:
"I spoke to … Jim Wallace and told him of my concerns … He said there were certain aspects of the recommendations which were ‘controversial' and needed more discussion."
If the McFadden commission had not been forced to rush out its report, perhaps that controversy would not exist.
I am reliably informed that work on the promised review of the social economy has not moved forward since Jackie Baillie's time in the social justice ejector seat, which seems a long time ago. It is a bit worrying that the minister who now has responsibility for the Executive's economic strategy showed so little interest in economic development in his previous role.
Members have been waiting for me to use the I-word: independence. My party and I believe that it will take independence for Scotland to have real control over its economy, social or otherwise. The key instruments for economic development in Scotland rest in London. However, it is clear that the voluntary sector has a key role to play in local economic development. I ask the minister to give us a commitment to put the review of the social economy back on track—or is the review another of Wendy Alexander's ideas that seems to have fallen by the wayside?
In conclusion—I am really coming to a conclusion this time—while we debate reports and responses, we must remember the importance of the voluntary sector to all Scotland's communities, both urban and rural. Each has particular problems, as Mike Rumbles pointed out, such as isolation. It is all very well to talk about population numbers and the level of poverty in one place in comparison with another, but for the individual who lives in poverty, it does not matter how many more people live in poverty around them. We must carefully consider how we deal with the voluntary sector in rural areas, which have their own problems with infrastructure. For example, transport is a basic need, with which the geographic SIPs can help.
Overall, the voluntary sector provides services that are locally controlled and that focus more clearly on the needs of individual service users and volunteers. The sector is more responsive than remote, bureaucratic organisations and is an important source of community leadership.
I thank all the volunteers and workers from the voluntary sector who took time to correspond with and meet the Social Justice Committee. They contributed greatly to the development of the committee's thinking. I ask the new ministerial team to consider more fully how to respond to the Social Justice Committee's report and to commit the Executive to taking action more rapidly than it has done to date. The SNP supports the committee's motion, which says that we should note the report, but I ask the minister to take notice of the report.
I put on record my congratulations to Margaret Curran on her promotion to the ministerial ranks. Unfortunately, she is not here to hear that for herself, but that is neither here nor there. Mr Henry has a hard act to follow. I also offer Iain Gray every good wish in his new portfolio as minister for everything.
We broadly welcome the findings of the Social Justice Committee report on its inquiry into the voluntary sector in Scotland. As a member of the committee, I was party to much of the evidence and the deliberations that surrounded our long-running inquiry. I am pleased that today sees the fruition of many months of hard work and that we have the opportunity to debate the important issues that the inquiry raised. There is no doubt that those who work in the voluntary sector, either as paid members of staff in charities or as volunteers in local communities, carry out sterling but often unrecognised work. Their commitment should be applauded—there is little doubt about the value that it adds.
The inquiry threw up certain concerns, which more than deserve to be aired. First, I will address the independence of the voluntary sector, which witnesses raised time and again during the evidence-taking sessions. Historically, the voluntary sector has been independent from government, and that independence is the sector's main strength. Voluntary organisations require independence to achieve their aims, meet local needs and provide a personalised service to their clients. My party and I find it wholly inappropriate that the voluntary sector should become an extended arm of government. As I have suggested, that concern is not held by the Scottish Conservative party alone. As long ago as 1998, Neil McIntosh, the convener of the SCVO, wrote in his annual review:
"Of course we need to be aware of the dangers of the loss of individual identity—what makes the voluntary sector special is its diversity and pluralism which do so much to enrich our society."
During the inquiry, the committee made numerous visits to see voluntary sector work in action on the ground in all parts of Scotland. Members particularly strove to visit rural areas, because we were well aware of the dominance of committee members from the central belt. Our visits were highly effective, because they allowed people to speak more freely about their concerns than they might have done in the more formal environment of an evidence-taking session.
I vividly recall our visit to Paisley, where feelings about the funding partners ran high, culminating in accusations of favouritism and corruption in the local authority. As I am a Lanarkshire lass, that was all quite alien to me. People's comments on independence included the allegation that groups were
"‘led by the nose' by councils as they who pay the piper ‘call the tune'. The attitude of councillors varies from co-operation to feeling threatened. As a result, services may be compromised."
Some observations were pretty damning. For example, it was said of the much-lauded compact that it is
"‘invisible' in the Highlands and ‘may as well not be there'."
The role of partnership was also questioned. Local authorities might seek the views of voluntary sector organisations but the people to whom we spoke did not feel that they were regarded as equal partners. Consultation exercises were often conducted on the local authority's terms—if they were conducted at all.
Charities felt that it was not always easy to obtain access to local authorities to discuss funding, and that funding was available for
"topics ‘of interest to politicians'."
It was felt that council funding could stifle the motivation of volunteers and affect the ethos of volunteering. Charitable organisations also suffer from what I will call consultation fatigue. Organisations that are united under umbrella organisations are often asked by the Executive to take part in public consultation exercises, but not all charities have the resources or time to meet regularly to discuss the issues on which their opinion is sought. Some consultation exercises have time scales that are as short as six weeks. In many cases, such time scales are too short to allow organisations to respond. In smaller charities, front-line staff are taken away from their priorities to collate information. It is not that those charities have no opinion on the issues raised; quite simply, they have neither the time nor the resources to cope with the constant round of consultations. That is what I mean by consultation fatigue, which must surely be counted among the additional burdens and challenges that face the sector and that we are discussing today.
Generally, the feeling remains that it is difficult for voluntary sector organisations not to feel beholden to various bodies, because of the way in which they are funded. There is far too much regulation and bureaucracy and organisations feel that they have to jump through hoops to satisfy conditions before a grant is awarded.
Participants in the fact-finding visit that I attended in the Mid Scotland and Fife region spoke of the trade-off between the independence of an organisation—which allows it to make its own decisions and follow its own agenda—and the reality of contracting with funders to deliver shared priorities. The report makes for disturbing reading when it examines the evidence of such threats to the independence of the sector, as opposed to the independence to which Linda Fabiani referred. That theme can be extended to independent schools. We must fiercely guard the charitable status of schools and I am sure that my colleagues will discuss that issue in greater detail later.
The second issue that I will address is that of charitable street collections. I am sure that many members will be familiar with the teams of face-to-face fundraisers—or tabard collectors—who have become a familiar feature of the streets and main shopping areas of our towns and cities.
Although I appreciate that charities face a constant battle in their search for innovative mechanisms to raise funds, I and others share concerns about that style of fundraising. The teams of people collect on behalf of the larger, well-established charities. They are notable for saying, "Have you got a moment for Oxfam?" or, "Have you got a minute for Barnardos?" or for whatever charity they happen to be representing that day.
Many members of the public have been surprised to learn that the tabard collectors are not aligned to any charity and that they change their allegiance according to the week. They are also paid, which obliterates another preconception about those who collect for charity on the streets. They are not collecting money but asking people to give a small donation every month by direct debit or standing order. Jean McFadden stated to the Social Justice Committee in October last year:
"they are not regulated, and there is no limit to their numbers."—[Official Report, Social Justice Committee, 3 October 2001; c 2552.]
I was heartened by the fact that Mrs McFadden's report recommended that the new legislation should cover all types of cash and non-cash donations, and that people who are not volunteers should be identified as such. I am pleased that the issue has been highlighted and I hope that the recommendations of the McFadden inquiry that have been shelved will be taken on board in future.
I support the committee's recommendation that volunteering is to be encouraged in Scotland's communities, but that should not overshadow the fact that there are people who are suffering from volunteer fatigue. Those who become involved in voluntary activities are getting tired of the regulatory burdens that the Executive places on them and their organisations.
The Executive would have us believe that the voluntary sector's well-being is one of its priorities. but the Executive does not seem to be practising what it preaches. I am thinking of the eight care homes run by the Church of Scotland that face closure. The Church of Scotland does not run care homes to make money; it does so out of a selfless desire to care for others. Five homes have already closed and Dunselma in Fenwick is facing closure. That brings me back to my earlier point about the regulatory burdens that the Executive is introducing and which continue to stifle charities.
For older residents, the closure of all those homes will be traumatic and possibly damaging to their health. With the closure of Dunselma, the nearest care home will be in Patna in east Ayrshire, which is 45 minutes away. Dunselma is—or, I should say, was—a fine example of all that the Executive claims to hold dear. All kinds of volunteering and community involvement took place there—meals on wheels, a lunch club, a volunteer-run health club for the residents and it was a home away from home for many. Many members would agree that Dunselma was a fine example.
Gordon Brown's recent decision to increase national insurance contributions will serve only to add to the voluntary sector's burdens. It is estimated that it could cost the sector approximately £15 million. That is an example of how the Executive flatters to help the voluntary sector while causing damage to it.
Added to that is the fact that the removal of advance corporation tax credits has hit charity and voluntary organisations. That has cost £400 million this year across the UK and costs approximately £40 million a year in Scotland. A shocking 15 per cent of all public donations to charities goes directly to the Treasury in unrecoverable VAT. That equates to £46 million a year in Scotland.
Although a reserved issue, the effect of Labour's abuse of the national lottery has been profound—£3.7 billion has been taken from the lottery to pay for pet projects, including education, health and environmental programmes, which should be funded by taxation. The losers are charities, the arts, sports and heritage.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
The member is in her last minute.
I am in my last minute; the member should have asked earlier.
I will end on a more positive note. Volunteers week is due to start in less than a month, on Friday 7 June. It will start with a parade from George Square to the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall. It is an opportunity for us to recognise and celebrate the work of volunteers as well as a chance for them to recruit new volunteers. No doubt other members and I will be recruited to do some work during that week. Last year, I found myself presenting certificates to volunteers and frying chips at a lunch club in Kilmarnock. That makes three generations of chip friers in my family—who would have thought it?
I conclude by sincerely thanking all the organisations and individuals that allowed us to visit their projects, those who came and met members of the Social Justice Committee, and those who gave written or oral evidence and who generally informed our deliberations. We were, of course, ably assisted by our clerking staff, one of whom has moved on to bigger and better things, and their shepherding was much appreciated.
No one could claim that our inquiry into the voluntary sector was an in-depth study, but we hope that we have provided a snapshot of the sector's condition and of the opinions of those most closely associated with it.
I start by adding my congratulations to the new members of the ministerial team, particularly Margaret Curran, who will make an excellent Minister for Social Justice. My congratulations to Hugh Henry are tinged with slight commiseration about the fact that he will have to burn the midnight oil to conquer a new brief and get up to speed on some complex issues. Nevertheless, I congratulate him.
I begin with some observations on my colleagues' contributions. I will do so across the board, in order to be fair.
I was interested in Lyndsay McIntosh's tax-raising agenda. That was why I intervened in the later part of her speech. I was also interested in Linda Fabiani's comment about the way in which local organisations constantly innovate. That comment was significant and related to Johann Lamont's comment about the way in which voluntary organisations should contribute to the agenda. There is a subtle difference between contributing to the agenda and organisations having the right to have their own agenda within the diverse and overarching issues that face the voluntary sector.
Can we imagine a Scotland without a voluntary sector? There would be no citizens advice bureaux, no Shelter Scotland, no credit unions, no independent drug addiction projects, no Alcoholics Anonymous, no after-school clubs or parent teacher associations, no Burns clubs or football supporters clubs, no women's guilds and no scouts. It would be a Scotland without colour or heart. It would be a dysfunctional and poorer Scotland.
No one can define the voluntary sector. As Dr Nicholas Fyfe and Dr Christine Mulligan put it in their research report:
"Having ‘a policy' for the voluntary sector is a bit like having ‘a policy' for the private sector. The private sector contains Microsoft and self-employed window cleaners and you would never dream of putting them together"
any more than we could put together the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and one of the smaller, locally funded service-providing organisations.
For all that, there are features that distinguish the voluntary sector from other sectors in society: it is robustly independent; its activities are for the public good; and it is diverse in organisation, style, size and function. There is a Darwinian, survival-of-the-fittest air about it. Many of us would not survive if its people were not made of sterner stuff than most of us are.
It was interesting for the Social Justice Committee to hear evidence in Edinburgh and throughout Scotland, from Inverness to Lockerbie. Hearing and seeing at first hand the problems faced by local groups does enormous good for the prestige and standing of the Scottish Parliament. I am grateful, as are other colleagues, to all the people who gave their time.
The support given by the Parliament and the Executive to capacity building in the sector has been worth while. An increase in funding from £23 million in 1998-99 to £39 million in 2001-02 has helped to build the network of councils for voluntary services and local volunteer development agencies or volunteer bureaux throughout Scotland. The Scottish compact, the active communities initiative, the millennium volunteers programme and the establishment of social investment Scotland are all playing their part.
The Scottish Executive says that it recognises the voluntary sector as
"a key partner in policy development, service delivery and the development of community capacity"
and recognises that
"voluntary sector organisations have their own agenda, priorities and actions" —[Official Report, Social Justice Committee, 19 September 2001; c 2501 and 2504.]
I would go a bit further and say that we live in a pluralist society in which the voluntary or independent sector has a democratic legitimacy that is as valid as, if different from, that of the Parliament or local authorities. At a time when democratic politics are being challenged as never before, the sector is arguably one of the healthiest manifestations of local democracy.
Against that background, why do we so often fail to sustain local voluntary groups and impose additional burdens on them or regulate them with targets and objectives that are often inappropriate and load them with unnecessary bureaucracy? During the inquiry, we were commonly told that 30 per cent or more of the time of voluntary groups' paid officials is spent scrabbling around for funds. I recently heard of one small organisation in Cambuslang, in my constituency, that is dependent on 13 different funding sources.
The Parliament has done fairly well in dealing with the additional financial burdens that legislation has imposed. We took on the cost of Scottish Criminal Record Office checks, we got round the problem of water rates for all but the largest organisations and the Executive is examining the cost of the regulation of houses in multiple occupation as it affects universities and Abbeyfield homes.
I will mention one new burden on which I seek the minister's assurance. Gordon Brown's budget this year will result in a rise in the national insurance burden on employers, including many voluntary organisations. I will pass over the fact that the problem was totally unnecessary and resulted from the Labour Government in London having to pretend that it was not raising income tax. If the Government had done the sensible thing and had funded the necessary investment in the national health service by an appropriate rise in income tax, for which the Liberal Democrats have argued for years, voluntary groups and small businesses would not have suffered the extra burden.
I am not sure how the budget change will impact on the money that local authorities are able to provide, as the national insurance increase will obviously affect their budgets. Perhaps the Executive should take into account the fact that less funding will be available to local authorities because of the new national insurance burden.
Christine Grahame is absolutely right. The feed-through issue must be acknowledged. In answer to my question the other day, the Executive said that voluntary organisations will be helped by a range of budget measures, such as tax relief for gifts of land and buildings to charities and changes to the rules for gift aid. Frankly, such measures are not especially relevant to most of the social sector voluntary groups to which the present debate relates.
It is necessary for the Executive to ensure that local authorities are funded and it is necessary for local authorities to ensure that the voluntary sector is funded to deal with the increase in costs. An organisation with two or three staff that operates on a local authority grant—in many cases such grants will have been fixed for five or six years—cannot absorb the extra cost without experiencing damage to its service. The Executive and the UK Government must give proper consideration to such matters before they put extra burdens on voluntary groups.
I will make a specific point about citizens advice bureaux, in which I have been involved over the years. CABx are perhaps uniquely affected by the activities of the Parliament. Twenty-three of the 40 acts that have been passed by the Parliament since 1999 have an impact on the service provided by CABx, which put a huge and vital emphasis on debt advice and debt management. The Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced earlier this week, will have an even greater effect on their service.
Seventy-seven per cent of all Department for Work and Pensions forms refer specifically to the CABx, as does the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act 2001. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 also requires a major increase in housing advice from the CABx. My point is simple: anyone can see that the CABx are a special case and require adequate and increased funding. One can argue that local authorities should have a statutory duty adequately to fund independent advice services. The new burdens must be matched by proper resources, however that is done. CABx cannot provide their service on standstill budgets and can certainly not do so in the light of the cuts, of 40 per cent cut in Edinburgh for example, that they have experienced in recent years.
The CABx play a central role. Does the member agree that it is vital to increase their coverage in Scotland? They are not present or active in parts of Scotland where they are badly needed.
Absolutely. On the Social Justice Committee's visit to Stonehaven, Cathie Craigie and I went to a former part-time CAB that had had to be cast adrift from the CAB organisation because it could not meet the service standards, premises arrangements and so on that were in place. We must find ways to deal properly with rurality, which Mike Rumbles mentioned.
All members have agreed that funding is the "biggy", as Linda Fabiani put it. Funding must be addressed at a local level, because often too little attention is paid to core funding. There is a case for an independent Scottish voluntary sector development fund, which—rather like the Department of Trade and Industry funding for Citizens Advice Scotland—would give muscle to local organisations in encouraging three-year partnership agreements with councils.
The Scottish Executive is right to say that councils are now being funded on a three-year basis and that there is no reason why councils in turn should not fund the voluntary sector organisations that they support on a three-year basis—not on a two-year basis, as Glasgow City Council is beginning to develop, or on the basis of a policy of no arrangements at all, which many councils adopt. Many councils' performance on funding agreements is quite lamentable—three-year agreements are as common as sightings of the yeti.
We must examine the contract culture, because what is appropriate for some organisations that deal with the public sector—as regards targets for delivery, for example—is not particularly appropriate for the voluntary sector, which provides services in a different way. The voluntary sector's services have an additional dynamic, human element, which it is not always possible to measure in the way that Governments and civil servants desire.
There must also be a more even playing field with regard to the way in which local authorities approach the provision of services by voluntary sector providers and council departments. In many instances, voluntary sector provision can sometimes do a better job than local authority services can. That must be acknowledged and the voluntary sector must be dealt with evenly.
A change in philosophy is necessary. There must be a move away from constant innovation and reinvention of the wheel towards sustaining successful organisations. The idea that most organisations can become self-sufficient at the end of a three-year or a five-year period is a chimera and, as such, is a public policy tool that should be bucketed. In private business, a track record is highly desirable when one goes to see the bank manager. In the voluntary sector, a track record represents a handicap.
I do not have time to discuss the rural issue, but all members benefited from the meetings that the committee had with various rural groups across Scotland.
I will finish by returning to the extra contribution of the voluntary sector. I recently visited the Castlemilk Economic Development Agency and a project that is called Can Cycle, which was the brainchild of a man with a vision. The project repairs bikes for the local youngsters at no cost, renovates bikes for sale at a cost of less than £30 and provides youngsters with training in maintenance skills. A related tin-can recycling scheme helps to fund the project. It takes many swallows to make a summer and the Can Cycle project by itself does not magically solve the problems of poverty or family breakdown in Castlemilk. However, many youngsters who are enjoying the freedom of their bikes rather than annoying the neighbours are less frustrated and bored than they might have been without the project.
Along with the other 44,000 voluntary sector organisations across Scotland, the Can Cycle project gives life, hope and a sense of the future to many disadvantaged communities and people in our country. In backing the Social Justice Committee's report, let us make sure that the most dynamic part of our civic society is helped and encouraged by the actions of government, both local and national.
I support the committee's report.
I thank the convener of the Social Justice Committee and all members who have spoken, because we have finished the opening speeches ahead of time, which must be a record. We now come to the open debate.
I add my congratulations to Hugh Henry on his appointment as the Deputy Minister for Social Justice. I know that all members of the Social Justice Committee will look forward to working with him.
I thank everyone who contributed to the Social Justice Committee's report on the voluntary sector in Scotland. In particular, I thank the committee clerks for their effort in assisting to produce a substantial and refreshingly direct report. I also thank all the voluntary and community organisations that participated in our inquiry. We heard the views and concerns of an incredibly wide range of voluntary groups, from Lockerbie to Orkney.
It is perhaps not surprising that, on many issues, those groups spoke with one voice. Funding, voluntary sector independence, the rural dimension, infrastructure and relationships with local and national Government became the central themes for each of our visits. The fact that so many organisations were able to participate in the process is further proof, if proof were needed, that our Parliament is delivering the kind of responsive, devolved government that those who shaped the Scotland Act 1998 envisaged.
During our inquiry, I valued having the opportunity to meet representatives of voluntary organisations from the Highlands and the Edinburgh and Lothian areas. I found their experience and first-hand knowledge helpful and I was impressed by the knowledge and commitment of all those who gave evidence. Scotland has a thriving and dynamic voluntary sector, of which we should rightly be proud, but which we should never take for granted.
During our visit to Inverness, the particular difficulties that the voluntary sector faces in rural communities were raised. Those included difficulties with transport, volunteer recruitment and communication. Indeed, the method of taking evidence from groups in Orkney—videoconferencing—provided a glimpse of the opportunities that information technology could offer to help to address some of those problems in future.
Groups in Inverness raised a number of concerns about funding. They highlighted the need to ensure that funders take account of the cost of training and of making funding applications. I am pleased that the Social Justice Committee's report has highlighted that point; I hope that the Executive will take it on board. I note that, in its response, the Executive indicated its belief in the value of staff and volunteer training.
The evidence that Linda Fabiani and I took from groups in Edinburgh and the Lothians highlighted other concerns about funding. Particular concerns were raised about the financial impact of increased regulation on voluntary organisations; the need for longer-term, three-year to five-year funding to allow more strategic planning; and the need to move away from the obsession with innovation. As other members have pointed out, we do not always have to reinvent the wheel. Many projects and organisations out there have proved themselves during their initial funding period. They deserve to become mainstream services.
I am pleased to see that, in its response to the Social Justice Committee's report, the Scottish Executive has given a commitment, in its direct funding of the voluntary sector, to provide on-going financial support in three-year tranches. I am also pleased that, in the most recent letter from the New Opportunities Fund to the committee, David Campbell has stated that the NOF is already implementing longer-term funding of three to five years.
The SCVO's briefing for today's debate commends the committee's long-running and detailed inquiry. However, our detailed inquiry managed only to scratch at the surface of the voluntary sector in Scotland. Our report marks the end of our inquiry but the beginning of a process of creating an environment in which voluntary and community organisations can flourish.
I commend and support the report.
I welcome the report from the Social Justice Committee. It should come as no great surprise to anybody that my remarks will focus on the independence of the voluntary sector—a subject that I pursued before this Parliament was set up and that I have continued to pursue during various debates in the chamber.
The Social Justice Committee's report says that some organisations expressed concern about their ability fully to maintain their independence from their funding organisations. That is a very serious problem indeed.
The Third Age Group affair in Fife received much publicity and rightly so. It is the tip of a very large iceberg and the template for the worst kind of control—
Will the member give way?
Certainly.
Does the member accept that last week's Audit Scotland report gave unequivocal clearance to Fife Council?
Helen Eadie should read the report for herself rather than believe the spin from the leader of the administration in Fife. The report is quite clear. It speaks of "wholly irregular" practices, "serious concerns" and "wholly inappropriate" actions by Fife Council employees.
The Third Age Group never actually existed as a voluntary organisation. Yes, it was an official charity, recognised by the Scottish Charities Office; yes, it had a management committee; but it was no more than a sham organisation—a front for Fife social work. As Douglas Sinclair, the chief executive of Fife Council, said in his second report,
"It was council made. Over the life of the project the dominant roles in the management were played by employees of Fife Council rather than by the volunteer members of the management committee."
Every significant person who was associated with the Third Age Group centre was a member of the Labour party. Angela McCallum, the first employee, was employed after she became a Labour councillor. Lynda Struthers, the second employee, was a Labour activist and Henry McLeish's election agent. Maureen Rodger, a social worker, was the driving force throughout the life of the centre, and was a Labour party election agent.
Is Tricia Marwick suggesting that being a member of the Labour party should bar a person from taking part in any voluntary organisation or group? It has been the history of Labour party members to be involved in volunteering. In fact, up and down the country, members will find that the majority of people who are out there volunteering—certainly in the areas with which I am familiar—are all very much Labour party supporters. Tricia Marwick seems to suggest that Labour party people should not be involved in voluntary organisations. That is ludicrous.
Cathie Craigie well knows that that is not what I am saying.
Well, it very much sounds like it.
The member well knows that that is not what I am saying. What I am doing is ensuring that the links between the Labour party and a sham organisation are well known to this chamber.
I will continue. Mary Cairns and Frances Howatson, who are social workers—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Would it be possible for you to comment on the appropriateness of Tricia Marwick's comments? The report that we are discussing is on the voluntary sector in Scotland. Our committee spent a considerable amount of time on the report and I would be grateful if members who participate in the debate would speak to the report.
The advice that I have been given is that Ms Marwick is in order at present. However, I am uneasy about the direction that the debate is taking. I wonder whether Ms Marwick would bear that in mind.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I draw your attention to my first remarks on the independence of the voluntary sector, a subject that was highlighted in the Social Justice Committee's report.
Mr Sinclair, the chief executive, quaintly referred to those links as "crossovers". The rest of us see the affair for what it is—good old-fashioned cronyism. Social workers purported to be office bearers, after the organisation wound up, to allow access to funds; documents were shredded by Fife social workers; and the remaining funds were transferred to another organisation by Fife social workers.
There have been a number of inquiries. There was a whitewash in December when Douglas Sinclair claimed that the council's actions with regard to the Third Age Group centre were "above reproach". After some dragging, kicking and screaming, a more detailed report was produced. Audit Scotland had, at my request, investigated the matter and provided an independent report—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Would you rule on whether the member is actually talking to this report or talking to a specific situation in Fife? I would suggest that she is talking to a specific situation in Fife.
As I say, I have been advised that the member is in order—just. However, I have expressed my unease about the direction that the debate is taking. I wonder, yet again, whether Ms Marwick will bear that in mind.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you share the advice that you have received and tell us why the member is "just" in order?
The chair will not comment on that. I have given my ruling and that is all that I intend to say.
There are continuing police inquiries into the matter. One organisation that has not been involved is the Scottish Charities Office—despite having the power to be so. The silence has been deafening from the Scottish Charities Office. I have now formally asked the Scottish Charities Office to investigate the matter.
Charity law reform in Scotland is long overdue. The SCVO was led to believe that such reform would come in the first session of this Parliament, but a reply to me this week from the Deputy Minister for Justice has finally ruled that out. The Third Age Group affair has shone a light on the practices in Fife but no one is naive enough to believe that such practices do not exist elsewhere. The voluntary sector is vital to the well-being of our community life in Scotland. It is important to the sector and to us that the sector has proper regulation, proper monitoring—and independence.
I congratulate the Social Justice Committee and I congratulate the new Minister for Social Justice and the new Deputy Minister for Social Justice on their appointments.
The committee's report tells us that there is an innate goodness and an innate wish in our society to help and to give. I wish I could say the same about Tricia Marwick after the damage that she has done to the voluntary sector in Fife.
I believe that we can celebrate the contribution of the voluntary sector throughout Scotland. I believe that the voluntary sector must play an equal part in developing strategy for volunteering in Scotland. We all know of, and are involved in, many voluntary organisations in our constituencies. Like others, I have been involved as a volunteer and as a full-time worker. Among the people who set real examples are those in their 80s who talk about helping "old people" who are about 10 years younger than they are. In my area it is a common for people in their 70s and 80s to want to continue to give their time.
As a Parliament we have a duty to promote and encourage greater voluntary and community involvement. We have a duty to raise awareness and inspire more people to get involved, increase opportunities for volunteering, make it easier for people to get involved and to support the development of active community up and down the country. That should not be seen as the Executive getting people to do something for nothing—that would not be an appropriate basis for Government involvement in the voluntary sector.
The report states clearly that involvement in the voluntary sector is about supporting and encouraging folk to contribute to their communities, to have a voice in the services that they receive and often help to deliver and to feel that they are integral part of the society in which they live. It is all about empowering and engaging people and combating social exclusion. Volunteering can enrich volunteers' lives. I welcome the report's ideas about further codifying relations between local and central Government and voluntary organisations in a readily comprehensible fashion.
The Scottish voluntary sector has an annual income in excess of £2 billion, which is equivalent to 5 per cent of gross domestic product. It employs more than 40,000 people, who are involved in more than 50,000 forms of voluntary management. The charitable sector is a significant player in the economy of Britain. The sector is worth about £16 billion a year. It directly employs almost 250,000 people and is larger than the United Kingdom motor industry.
The Government spends about £104 million a year in the voluntary sector, local authorities add an extra £150 million and the national lottery adds £145 million. That is a significant sum and underlines the growing appreciation of what the voluntary sector can contribute, in partnership with the Government, to the life of the country. One only has to look at the voluntary movement in housing to realise what a singularly important task is taken forward, by and large, by a great deal of voluntary activity. The fact that so much public money is invested in that sector underlines the importance that we attach to the voluntary sector.
The report calls for mainstreaming. I urge the minister to go further. The process of proofing is important and all ministers in the Scottish Executive should be urged to remember that when devising their policies. If the minister's support for voluntary activity is to find a real place in the realms of Government, the Scottish Executive must develop—even more than it has already—an appreciation and understanding of the effect that its policies have on the voluntary sector. If proofing guidelines have not already been issued to all departments, I urge ministers to take that in hand. I ask the minister to remind colleagues to take into account that dimension of our public life when other departments are framing policies or legislation. That continual awareness can make a great difference in ensuring that the voluntary sector finds its place in partnership with Government in many vital areas.
I urge the minister to bear in mind the concerns that faith-based organisations have expressed about bidding for funds. Such organisations feel that whenever they deal with the Government or local authorities, they are forced to choose between being true to their religious integrity and complying with the policy of the local authority or Government department. Will the minister do everything in his power to simplify the funding arrangements, bureaucracy and form filling with which voluntary organisations have to deal?
I support the report and all the work of the Social Justice Committee. I was impressed with the work of members and clerks—it was a very full report.
I welcome the report, particularly because it gives us an opportunity to debate several important issues. I think that it was quite appropriate for Tricia Marwick to bring up the Third Age Group charity. Even if her points were unpalatable for some, it is clear that the debate provided an opportunity to raise such pertinent questions.
The pertinent questions that I would like to raise relate to funding and, in particular, to lottery support for voluntary organisations. Members will be aware of the New Opportunities Fund—in particular because the New Opportunities Fund was kind enough to write to us and tell us what a grand job it is doing. Indeed it also sent us the briefing that Mr Gibson is adeptly waving around.
I will quote from the letter:
"The New Opportunities Fund is the newest Lottery distributor, having been established in 1998 to make grants to health, education and environment projects, with a particular focus on promoting social inclusion. Our mission is to help create lasting improvement to the quality of life, particularly of disadvantaged communities in both urban and rural areas."
Amen to that. It sounds like a terrific and laudable aim.
However, the New Opportunities Fund is somewhat concerned about the report. It says:
"There appears to be an inference in the report … that our funding is not accessible to the voluntary sector."
The NOF refers to paragraph 27 in particular. I would like to go further than the report and not infer but state that there is a problem with lottery funding for voluntary organisations.
I would like to draw members' attention to the cause of Scottish Centres. Scottish Centres provides facilities where school children can be given intensive outdoor education. In partnership with local authority child care and social work services, Scottish Centres provides specialist courses for young people with serious behavioural problems, including many who have already engaged in criminal activity. It is the largest provider of such services.
In order to improve its services, Scottish Centres wanted to access lottery funding through the New Opportunities Fund. However, the difficulty for an organisation such as Scottish Centres is that, because it is national, it has to apply for funding through local authorities. The funding from the New Opportunities Fund has been disbursed and devolved to the 32 local authorities. The four centres across Scotland run by Scottish Centres are not able to apply to one fund—Scottish Centres must apply to the 32 local authorities that use its facilities. I am sure that members will appreciate the difficulties and the burden that places on the organisation.
I call on the New Opportunities Fund to recognise that while devolving grant disbursement is a laudable aim, it is inappropriate for an organisation that operates on a national level to have to go through 32 local authorities to put together a bid for a centre in Meigle in Perthshire that services children in great need from Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dumfries. Local authorities in those areas will not be easily persuaded to award money to centres that are outwith their boundaries.
I suggest that the New Opportunities Fund puts aside a set amount for national projects. If we are to deliver social inclusion across the nation rather than just locally, Scottish Centres must be able to access such funds to ensure that it can deliver the voluntary service that would otherwise cost the public purse a great deal more.
As many members will know, I have a background in the voluntary sector and I remain involved in several organisations that are listed in the register of members' interests. The voluntary sector plays an important role in our communities. The sector has evolved and expanded and is now an integral part of many aspects of modern life, often providing services, support and solidarity where the public sector cannot.
The areas in which the voluntary sector is engaged have also changed. Although the sector is still delivering meals on wheels and hospital trolleys, it is also involved in advice, care of the elderly, child care, youth work, education, adult learning, the social economy—things like credit unions—housing, arts, community action organisations, such as those fighting drug abuse, and so on. The voluntary sector has changed substantially over the past 20 years. Voluntary and statutory bodies are able to work together in ways that complement each other's strengths.
The major issue for the voluntary sector has always been the struggle for sustainable funding and resources. Many funders offer short-term funding for new ideas and projects. That is important, but we need to look beyond seedcorn funding for voluntary organisations to core funding that provides resources for running costs, training, consolidation and strategic planning. Many people in voluntary organisations become skilled at reinventing their organisations to meet the latest criteria. Often, funding becomes the main focus in organisations. That is a diversion of time and effort from the primary objectives of organisations.
Matched funding can also be a nightmare, in particular when it is paid in arrears, and it is even more of a nightmare when it is paid late, as is often the case. We need to recognise that if a project is good and meets continued need, it should not be forced to close simply because a funding stream has dried up. In my experience, the voluntary sector is the only sector in which staff fundraise—whether through jumble sales or by filling in endless application forms—for their own salaries. That is not appropriate.
In recent years, the relationship between government and the voluntary sector in Scotland has improved, but I look forward to continued improvement. Many voluntary organisations work closely with local authorities, and trust and mutual respect can develop. That can be positive, but not all voluntary organisations share that experience. There needs to be a compact at local level that is based on a national model but tailored to local needs.
A lot remains to be done in the development of voluntary sector infrastructure at a local level, in particular with disadvantaged groups. For example, the Equal Opportunities Committee heard from the black and ethnic minority communities, which stressed the need to develop voluntary sector infrastructure at a local level. Much work has still to be done on voluntary sector issues. Local councils for voluntary services can play a key role in that essential development by working with local groups to facilitate participation and the active citizenship of people in their communities.
I welcome the report, and commend the Social Justice Committee on it. I look forward to continued work and debate in the Scottish Parliament on the voluntary sector.
Like many other contributors to the debate, I welcome the report and its many positive recommendations. However, I wish to address a rather dangerous trend in the way in which the Social Justice Committee and the Executive identify the ways in which social inclusion and poverty in Scotland can be tackled.
The Social Justice Committee's report states on page 13:
"The Committee encourages the Executive to increase targeting of volunteering initiatives in deprived communities. However, this must be accompanied by support to meet the additional burdens present in such areas, such as transport costs."
I want to challenge an attitude of mind. I well understand the wishes of the authors of the report to tackle poverty and social exclusion in what they see as obvious and well-defined communities, especially those in the constituencies that they know well. The members of the Social Justice Committee represent constituencies in Glasgow, Cumbernauld, Airdrie and the Central Scotland region, but—from a geographical perspective—it is not what one might call a representative committee drawn from the whole of Scotland.
Does Mr Rumbles accept that members of the committee visited every region of Scotland including, of course, his own?
Absolutely. I know that two members of the Social Justice Committee visited my constituency, but I would have liked to know about their visit beforehand.
There are many parts of Scotland where deprivation is not so easily identifiable, and where the less well-off in society do not live in so-called deprived communities. For example, in my constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, 15 per cent of my constituents live in poverty, and they do so among some of the most well-off in our society. If it is assumed that deprived communities must be targeted, by definition those who are most in need of help—those who live not only in poverty but in isolation from the rest of the community, which is perceived to be relatively well-off—will be failed. I get more than a little fed up when, time after time, funding is targeted in that way.
Recently, I examined the funding announcements of the Community Fund, which Linda Fabiani highlighted. The fund has a remit to tackle social exclusion. We heard about the New Opportunities Fund as well. The figures that I have show that last year, Aberdeenshire received more than £0.5 million less than its fair share of Community Fund awards. Despite there being 14 applications, only six were successful. The average grant in Aberdeenshire of £100,000 was also well below the Scottish average of nearly £150,000.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I will not. I have only a minute and a half left.
This is supposed to be a debate.
Exactly, but there is no debate about this.
Despite having nearly 5 per cent of Scotland's population, Aberdeenshire received just over 2.5 per cent of the main and medium-sized grants.
I will tempt you with an extra minute, Mr Rumbles.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I will give way to the convener of the Social Justice Committee.
I trust that Mr Rumbles will agree with me that he is making a false distinction. The report specifically addresses rurality. I ask him to reflect on the fact that all the evidence shows that because poor communities do not have the infrastructure and expertise to support applications, they are doing extremely badly in relation to lottery funding success.
I am addressing another issue, which is exclusion in rural areas and which I see for myself. Aberdeenshire has been excluded, ironically, from the Community Fund's fair share initiative, because there are no defined deprived communities there.
By targeting communities, effectively we ignore the excluded in areas such as the area that I represent. To be fair to the Social Justice Committee, three paragraphs of its report identify the problem of rurality, which Johann Lamont mentioned, but that is only three paragraphs. The Social Justice Committee makes two recommendations on page 17 of the report. While the report asks the Executive to explore alternative ways of providing services in rural Scotland, I am disappointed that it does not recommend to the Executive specific ways of providing services differently. If I had time, I could go into that.
Will the member give way?
I would love to give way, if I have more than a minute left.
I will give you another minute, Mr Rumbles. There is time.
I hope that you are not showing favouritism, Presiding Officer.
Mr Rumbles might be correct that the report devotes only three paragraphs to rural issues, but I am sure that he agrees—if he has read the report—that the issues that were raised, whether in the Borders or Lanarkshire, were broadly similar. For example, the transport and access issues that were raised were similar throughout the country.
That is exactly my point. Rural areas are ignored if recognised deprived communities are targeted, because many people do not live in the targeted deprived communities.
I am sorry to say that this report is a missed opportunity for the less well-off in my constituency, and does not adequately address how to tackle social inclusion in isolated parts of rural Scotland. Put simply, we must avoid the easy option of tackling poverty only in clearly identified deprived communities. We must not forget that we need to be people orientated, and that we must tackle poverty where and when it occurs in every location, urban and rural. That means not forgetting those who need help most—those who are isolated and excluded from communities.
Do I have five minutes or four minutes, Presiding Officer?
Let us see how we do.
I see. There are rules for some and rules for others.
First, I associate myself with Robert Brown's remarks on the role of citizens advice bureaux. When I was a practising lawyer, I spent much of my time recommending that clients go to the local citizens advice bureau, in particular for benefits information. Citizens advice bureaux need financial support.
Secondly, on rurality, I note the recommendations of the Social Justice Committee. I draw the Deputy Minister for Social Justice's attention to the first recommendation on page 17 of the report:
"The Scottish Executive should clarify how the problem of rurality is dealt with in funding arrangements for the Voluntary Sector."
I would like to know when an answer is received on that. I hope that it will deal with some of the issues that Mr Rumbles raised about defining deprived and impoverished areas.
I will focus on something that mystifies me, but for which there may be a simple answer, and that is how funding is allocated. I will provide an example with regard to the recently announced £5 million package for special educational needs. I note that grants will be given
"to a range of national and local organisations across Scotland, including Enquire, the national SEN advice and information service."
That is worthy, but I do not understand how a voluntary organisation such as ISEA Scotland—ISEA stands for Independent Special Education Advice—which is a Scotland-wide organisation, does not get any money. I make the distinction for this reason: ISEA Scotland does the hands-on work. Phone calls go to Enquire, but ISEA Scotland does the work. In fact, Enquire sends out a leaflet with information on ISEA Scotland on the back of it.
The organisation has 1,056 live cases. The two women who run ISEA have children with special educational needs—
The situation that Christine Grahame describes is not confined to the Borders. Recently, I made a visit to Facilitate (Scotland), which is a suicide prevention centre in Glasgow that provides counselling services. I discovered that, because Facilitate was not going to receive the funding from the Greater Glasgow NHS Board and the Executive that it had anticipated, it was to lay off people. That was despite the fact that the Executive helpline Breathing Space, which opened a couple of weeks prior to my visit, was referring people to Facilitate. Such incoherence in funding has to be addressed by the minister.
That point is similar to the one that I was making, which was not meant to be contentious. I do not understand why an organisation that represents people at educational appeal tribunals and committee hearings does not get funding. ISEA is to receive temporary funding only until the end of the year and it states in its leaflet that, because of funding, its advocacy service is
"restricted to providing support to parents who are about to embark on or are in the process of going through an appeal or taking legal action. However exceptions will be made depending on individual circumstances".
It is all very well to create an advice line, but if the people who are delivering the advice are not getting funded—
I do not wish to be personal, but on a number of occasions in the chamber, Christine Grahame has advocated the case of different voluntary sector groups. Surely strategic decisions have to be taken about whether a group is providing the right service for its area. Perhaps other more established groups are providing the same service.
ISEA is not a Borders-based service—its advice line covers the whole of Scotland. I made the point to give an example and members have heard another example from my colleague Adam Ingram. I may be wrong, but I think that ISEA is the only voluntary organisation in Scotland that is doing that work. I am asking the Social Justice Committee to consider that discrepancy.
I also ask the committee to be good enough to proceed to undertake an audit of the organisations that are receiving funding through the Scottish Executive or other bodies. That would allow us to see who is getting the money and what they do for that money. It may be that there are examples other that ISEA in Scotland, but I ask the committee to consider the position of ISEA. It is all very well to have advice lines, but not if the front-line voluntary organisations that provide them do not get support to deliver the services.
I congratulate Hugh Henry on his move to the post of Deputy Minister for Social Justice. I hope that between now and the end of the debate Margaret Curran returns from being sworn in as the new Minister for Social Justice. I offer her my congratulations.
Like other members who have spoken in the debate, I welcome the opportunity to debate the Social Justice Committee's findings and recommendations, which resulted from our inquiry into the voluntary sector. I thank the committee clerks, past and present, for their efforts. I thank especially the voluntary sector groups from all parts of Scotland who gave of their precious time to make our visits meaningful and informative. I give special mention to the Stonehaven Advice and Information Resource project for the welcome that it gave Robert Brown and me, and for sharing with us its scarce resources—annual general meeting biscuits—on the day of our visit.
Every committee member was impressed with the quality of the evidence that the inquiry received. Volunteers and full-time workers up and down the country voiced similar experiences, whether they were working in communities in Aberdeen, Perth or the Borders. People took different approaches and had different ideas about improvements that they wanted to see in urban and rural areas. However, their opinions on, and suggestions for, improved relations with the Executive and for delivery and management of their services were basically the same.
Scotland's third sector has a key role to play in helping to deliver social justice. Voluntary and community groups are in close touch with marginalised groups. They are pleased to identify and to respond to changing needs. Every day, volunteers make a tremendous contribution to the lives of many people throughout Scotland. Indeed, many people who make such contributions do not consider themselves to be volunteers; they see themselves as people who are active in their communities and who simply help their neighbours.
As members have said, the committee met organisations from the eight regions of Scotland. The consensus that was reached as a result of evidence was that relations between the voluntary sector and the Executive had improved greatly since devolution. An important tool in those improved relations was the introduction of the "Scottish Compact". To the credit of all, the compact was prepared in a partnership between the Executive and the voluntary sector. The enthusiasm and drive behind the compact was because of Labour in the Executive. The Executive has given the voluntary sector a place at the policy development table, which will make policies more responsive to the sector's needs and potential. Robert Brown listed the many areas of service delivery. I will therefore not repeat the list.
Lyndsay McIntosh and Johann Lamont spoke about consultation. They also spoke about the concerns that were expressed up and down the country about the time that is involved in consultation and the work that it generates for staff and their volunteers. We heard that the time scales for consultations meant that full-time staff could not consult their members. Every committee member took that evidence seriously; we are concerned about it. The voluntary sector did not express those concerns by way of complaint; rather, it wanted to highlight the need for the Executive to review and examine ways of improving the methods that are used to consult and the time scales that are allowed for responses.
Does the member agree that difficulties arise when volunteers become involved in other voluntary groups? Does she agree that they can end up further and further away from the group with which they got involved in the first place? There are many ways of networking and volunteers are becoming fatigued as a result.
That concern was expressed. From my experience, that is a problem for people in management positions. The Executive should not find the problems with consultation to be insurmountable. I hope that we can arrive at a better method of consulting and involving the sector.
The compact is a great step forward. I hope that we continue to encourage local government to prepare local compacts in consultation with the voluntary sector in their areas. The sector is developing. It employs about 100,000 people and involves hundreds of thousands of volunteers. The Executive has shown commitment. I hope that it continues to do so and to work at the same speed to improve the situation for the voluntary sector in future.
The report is interesting. I congratulate the people behind it who have worked hard on it.
While I was a member of the Finance Committee, along with Adam Ingram, I produced a report on behalf of the committee that looked at funding of voluntary organisations. Various members have spoken about that subject, but it might be helpful for me to recapitulate some of the points that were made to me by voluntary organisations.
I will start with a political point. Successive Governments, including the present Executive, have grossly underfunded the voluntary sector. That is an absolute disgrace. Funding for the voluntary sector must be managed much better than it is. That is such a disgrace not because of the wickedness of politicians, but because many central and local government officials regard the voluntary sector as a competitor and possibly even as an enemy. Officials do not like the fact that the voluntary sector is uncontrollable. We politicians who believe in the voluntary sector must crack that open. I hope that the new ministers—whom I welcome—get a grip on the subject. If voluntary organisations do not receive adequate national and local funds, many will collapse.
As other members pointed out, sustainable core funding is especially needed. The current project-funding mania is extraordinarily foolish and means that people cannot secure continuing core funding for their basic activities. The local government changes in 1995 in particular harmed many groups that were usually funded locally. However, the same problem is evident at national level. For example, in 1986—under the wicked Tories—50 per cent of Youth Scotland's turnover was covered by grant; now however, under an enlightened coalition Government, it receives only 16 per cent. That is just not acceptable.
We must also maintain successful projects. With short-term funding, a project spends a year getting itself organised, does something for the next year and then spends the third year scrabbling about for funds to keep things going. That is a ludicrous waste of everyone's time, money and energy.
We must combat the idea that "new is good"; actually, "new is good" is bad. Although many people are doing many things well, they do not receive support for keeping them up. Instead, they receive support for fanciful new projects and must compete in ludicrous competitions. In certain cases, they are not even allowed to use existing staff who know about the subject. As far as I can see, the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Natural Heritage give out no core funding whatever. Although SNH is allocated £40 million, it passes only £2 million on to voluntary organisations.
I want to highlight a number of examples. The Lochaber Music School, which came to me for help with core funding, receives no such funding from the SAC. However, it does receive project funding. If it suggested teaching the clarsach and fiddle on top of Ben Nevis, it would secure funding for such an imaginative project. However, it gets nothing if it simply carries on teaching those instruments in Lochaber High School. The whole project is in dire straits. Furthermore, Rural Forum Scotland received project funding worth £2 million; however, because it could not secure £120,000 in core funding, it collapsed. We must address the issues of core funding and of keeping successful projects going.
The Executive and other people are keen on sport. However, although national sports bodies receive standstill grants, many local clubs receive no grant at all, despite often having budgets of less than £1,000. We are not talking about big money, but about reasonable amounts of money being sent in the right direction. Because of publicity, sport has particular problems with getting coaches, officials, referees and so on.
I want to touch on one or two other issues. Although I bore people endlessly with this issue, I will point out that there is excessive paperwork in the voluntary sector. There are too many unrelated initiatives from well-meaning Government departments. Moreover, staff conditions in the voluntary sector must be as good as they are in local government. Finally, committees need professional support from lawyers and other personnel, because they can often be tripped up on various issues.
Although the quantity of support in the chamber this morning is disappointing, we have heard some good speeches. I hope that the ministers will get a grip on the subject, and that we can get a grip on them.
For a moment, I thought that Donald Gorrie was about to cross the aisle and join the Conservatives. However, that will clearly have to wait for another day.
I welcome the Social Justice Committee's report. I am sure that all members are familiar with the vital role that voluntary groups play in their areas. Groups that I have come into contact with recently include: the Perthshire Association for Mental Health; the Samaritans' hospital car system, which provides elderly and ill people and their carers with transport to hospital; the Princess Royal Trust for Carers in Blairgowrie, which provides day care for those who suffer from Alzheimer's to ensure that their carers can have a much-needed break; and the young folk from Kirriemuir and Forfar who, with the support of their communities, are actively raising funds for a skateboard park. If we look at any local paper on any typical day, we will find many stories about what the voluntary sector is doing.
In echoing something that Donald Gorrie highlighted in his speech, I want first to mention the situation that faces Youth Scotland, which is the umbrella group for Scotland's youth clubs and whose representatives I met last Friday. Six hundred and nineteen groups from throughout Scotland, involving 42,000 youngsters and 4,200 adult volunteers, are affiliated to Youth Scotland. Every town in Scotland has a youth club, which provides a valuable resource of activities for young folk. At a time when we hear so much in the chamber and elsewhere about youth crime and disorder, we should value an organisation that promotes diversionary activities.
After inspecting Youth Scotland in September 2001, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education stated that Youth Scotland was a very effective organisation that had purpose and direction. Furthermore, it said that Youth Scotland showed a creative approach to attracting funding, was highly valued by its membership and made very good use of external expertise to facilitate that process. However, following that glowing report, Youth Scotland was shocked to discover that its headquarters' core grant funding from the Scottish Executive was cut. It will receive £5,000 less in 2002-03 than it received in 1985-86. It will not have escaped members' attention that, as Donald Gorrie kindly pointed out, we had a Conservative Government in 1985-86, whereas we now have a Labour-Liberal coalition.
Worse still, Youth Scotland's HQ training grant, which has been paid for the past 20 years, has now been withdrawn without any consultation or warning and after the organisation had drawn up staff and board development policies. It goes without saying that—given its good report from HMI and that it feels that it has done everything right—Youth Scotland finds that decision inexplicable. I invite the minister in his winding-up to comment on those points and to tell us whether the Scottish Executive is committed to the youth voluntary sector.
My second point relates to quite a different matter: faith-based social projects. The largest provider of social services in Scotland outwith the state is the Church of Scotland Board of Social Responsibility, which my colleague Lyndsay McIntosh mentioned. At this point, I must declare an interest, as my wife works for the organisation. A few weeks ago, it was forced to close eight care homes and other projects because of inadequate funding from the Executive.
However, it is not just funding issues that affect faith-based providers. A couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to visit the Bethany Christian Trust with the shadow Home Secretary, Oliver Letwin. Bethany is one of the largest providers of social services in Edinburgh, and concentrates on the disadvantaged, rough sleepers and drug abusers. Some might see such people as the lowest level of humanity and beyond hope, but it was impossible not to be moved by meeting people who had once been in the gutter and who are now leading fulfilling lives because of Bethany's help. Bethany offers an holistic approach and never turns people away. The commitment and care of its staff are second to none. It works because it is a Christian organisation, with an added value that comes from its workers' beliefs. However, the Christian ethos that makes Bethany so attractive and effective also acts as a barrier to its accessing council funding. The Labour-run City of Edinburgh Council will not fund certain Bethany projects because the organisation will not, for faith reasons, sign up to the council's equal opportunities programme. The result is that political correctness is preventing the best standard of care from being given to the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society.
If the Parliament is serious about having a thriving voluntary sector in Scotland, we must treat the sector seriously. As Donald Gorrie said, that means having proper core funding, which must be signalled well in advance. It also requires the removal of barriers to faith-based welfare projects. I trust that the minister will address those points.
Before I come to the nub of what I want to say, I will comment on a few speeches. I add my support to Brian Monteith's comments on Scottish Centres, which provide an excellent standard of outdoor education; to Cathy Peattie's remarks on funding; to Robert Brown's remarks on citizens advice bureaux; to Murdo Fraser's remarks on the Bethany Christian Trust, with which I have worked in the past and which provides help swiftly and efficiently to people who need it; and to Adam Ingram's remarks on Facilitate (Scotland), the opening of which I attended last year and which provides an excellent service for depressed people.
I will not, as members might expect, launch into a speech on environmental organisations such as the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, Community Service Volunteers Environment and the Woodland Trust.
You mention them only in passing.
Yes. I would have liked to have found time to pursue the enormous advantages—which are being wasted—of developing the area waste plan, which could accrue if the Executive and local councils paid more attention to the huge number of voluntary recycling projects, many of which are socially inclusive.
Instead, I will address an issue that came to my notice fairly recently, which is the hidden economy of voluntarism in Scotland—child and adult carers. Murdo Fraser mentioned the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, to which I pay tribute. I alert members to the fact that a new child centre will open in Aberdeen, in advance—I hope—of the Parliament's temporary move to Aberdeen. The work of the Princess Royal Trust for Carers involves huge sensitivities. The reason why we know so little about carers' problems is the sensitivity of carers in revealing their problems.
The Ca(i)re project is a unique project that has come to my notice recently. Eric Liddell won a gold medal at the Olympics while at university in Edinburgh and, incidentally, my auntie Dorea used to cut his hair in prison camp. The Ca(i)re project is run at the Eric Liddell Centre at Holy Corner, which is home to many voluntary organisations. The project aims to provide a social life for adult carers who otherwise hardly ever meet other people. Week in, week out, month in, month out and year in, year out, such carers feel that they must stay at home to take care of adult children or elderly relatives who need constant care and attention. The Ca(i)re project is run by the carers; they decide what they need. Interesting things to do and opportunities to socialise are brought in from outside. The project is unique and immensely valuable. I attended a meeting that was held to discuss its first report. The project is of value for both carers and the cared for, because the carers return to caring with renewed spirit and vigour.
You have one more minute.
The Executive should do everything that it can to help such projects. At the moment, a minimal level of respite care is available. We should be concerned that such an important project is unique. The project deserves to be replicated throughout Scotland, which is why I want to draw members' attention to it.
Donald Gorrie mentioned competition between local authorities and voluntary organisations. I have examples of such competition, particularly in relation to the provision of a valuable, socially inclusive recycling project. I will not go into detail now—
You do not have time.
We should be aware that such conflicts exist.
We come to the closing speeches. Keith Raffan has five minutes. We are slightly behind time, so I would appreciate it if members could pick up the pace a little in the closing speeches.
I congratulate the Social Justice Committee on its report and the convener on her introductory speech on the report. The report gives a snapshot of the voluntary sector in Scotland. As it points out, evidence was taken almost exclusively from the voluntary sector. As a continuation of the committee's excellent work, it should take evidence from statutory agencies. It is important to integrate statutory agencies and the voluntary sector.
The voluntary sector should not be a way to finance core services on the cheap. From my political and philosophical point of view, that method of financing core services is intrinsically wrong and places unacceptable burdens on volunteers, which leads to what Johann Lamont rightly described as the professionalisation of the voluntary sector. Robert Brown introduced his speech colourfully by giving examples that showed the variety of the sector. I view the voluntary sector more as involving ancillary or extra services—which are crucial—but not core services.
I will give a few examples from recent visits that I have made. Murdo Fraser also did so and it is helpful. The Guide Dogs for the Blind training centre in Forfar is the second biggest employer in the town; Body Positive Tayside does a lot of good work to support HIV and AIDS sufferers; the Sanctuary in Glenrothes helps people with drug misuse problems, particularly problems related to heroin or a combination of heroin and methadone; and Simpson House in Edinburgh, which is run by the Church of Scotland, does tremendously valuable work in helping prisoners who have drug problems and providing throughcare for prisoners when they come out of prison. The voluntary sector has a key and central role in such additional or ancillary services.
As Linda Fabiani eloquently put it, funding is "the biggy". [Interruption.] I am sorry, but the chatting on my left is distracting me. I would like the convener of the Social Justice Committee to listen to this point, because I think that she will agree with it. The lack of stability and security in core funding prevents effective planning and distracts those who are trained and those who are experienced from what they want to do and what they should be doing, which is not scraping around for money. In Kirkcaldy, the Clued Up Project does excellent work in schools to help those who have, or who potentially have, drug and alcohol problems, but it always has to think about whether it has enough money to take it beyond the end of the financial year.
We must address that kind of problem. We need three-year funding. It is not easy for local authorities; they must deal with limited resources, competing demands and ring fencing. When authorities are under pressure they often have to cut what it is easiest to cut—which often means voluntary sector projects. Christine Grahame made a valid point about national insurance increases having a serious impact on local authorities, which only aggravates the problem.
Cathy Peattie rightly referred to the lack of co-ordination between public sector bodies such as social work departments and other local authority departments and health boards. As the report says, it is difficult to get a clear picture of what is funded and by whom, which leads to duplication and overlap. I said earlier, in an intervention, that I believe that the drug and alcohol action teams might be a suitable model. They have successfully brought different public sector bodies together around one table to identify local needs. More important, they have brought the resources around one table in order to target those needs accordingly.
Robert Brown spoke about the need for a voluntary sector development fund, which I support. Such a fund could disburse money through those voluntary sector action teams—for want of another phrase—to ensure that local needs are met. As Johann Lamont said, the voluntary sector must not be top down, but bottom up; or—as I would prefer to put it—the sector should not be Government down, but community up. The best and most successful projects emerge from communities. The danger with that is patchy coverage; in other words, good projects in one area and nothing at all in others. That is why we need the sharing of best practice and of successful projects.
I recently attended a Robertson fund conference on vulnerable children whose parents are being treated for drug misuse. There was a presentation from a Wrexham councillor—a distinguished member of the Labour party, Councillor Malcolm King—who, 20 years ago, founded an adventure playground in one of the most deprived council estates in Wrexham. I knew Malcolm previously. That project has been extraordinarily successful and has led to a 28 per cent reduction in juvenile crime in the town. That is precisely the kind of project that emerges from the community and which we need to stimulate, nurture and support. We do not need to reinvent the wheel; we need to support projects such as this and the Dundee youth project's drop-in centre, The Corner, and Off the Record in Stirling. Those are the projects that we must support, finance and replicate elsewhere.
I congratulate the Social Justice Committee on a job well done. It is especially pleasing that the committee took the time and trouble to go around Scotland taking evidence, although it seems to have rubbed Mike Rumbles up the wrong way by visiting his constituency without giving him notice. I suggest that Cathie Craigie might have called on him in the early evening; however, it would no doubt have been suggested to her that she had had her tea. Not to worry.
I also congratulate the fourth ministerial team in four years to deal with social justice. I understand that Margaret Curran cannot be with us this morning as she is being sworn in. It occurs to me that people in her role usually end up being sworn at. As they sip from the poisoned chalice of the social justice remit, I wish them well.
This has been a good debate and many good points have been made. Johann Lamont properly noted that many voluntary sector organisations have grown out of an identified need. She also stressed that, although consultation should not be tokenistic, it should not be exhaustive. Those were sound points, which we should all take on board.
Linda Fabiani stressed the problems of funding. I agree with her that it is not good enough that there are difficulties with section 9 and section 10 grants. There is something fundamentally wrong with the system if, even with the advent of three-year budgeting, redundancy notices are issued to staff as a matter of course as the end of the financial year approaches.
Lyndsay McIntosh and others paid tribute to the voluntary sector. It is right to reflect on the fact that 500,000 people regularly volunteer for the 44,000 organisations that are active in the voluntary sector in Scotland. The income of those organisations is between £1.6 billion and £2 billion and they employ 100,000 full-time staff. That is the contribution that people in Scotland make to the voluntary sector, and we should all be proud of it. Lyndsay McIntosh also underlined the problems that arise with taxation. Policies are sometimes not thought through. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided in his recent budget to increase the level of national insurance contributions, he should have thought of the impact that that would have on charitable bodies, which Lyndsay McIntosh quantified at £46 million.
Robert Brown catalogued the contribution that the voluntary sector makes, although I question whether football supporters clubs should be viewed as either charitable or voluntary. He did well to highlight the degree of bureaucracy that inhibits action on the part of voluntary bodies.
Does not the member congratulate the Executive on its support for Supporters Direct? As volunteers and people who are committed to their football clubs, those people are the best hope of saving some of our smaller football teams and ensuring that our larger football teams have more appropriate direction in future.
There are issues of funding. I would have been better disposed to congratulate the Executive had more of its members signed my motion congratulating Partick Thistle. However, that is another matter.
As Karen Whitefield rightly said, we must never take the voluntary sector for granted. We must recognise the tremendous amount of good work that those organisations do. It is a little distressing that one of the themes to come through in the evidence that the committee took is the fact that local authorities seem to regard charities and voluntary sector organisations as competitors rather than as allies in doing good. Some thought must be given to that problem.
Donald Gorrie also highlighted that and told us what we already knew—that, in general, people were better off under the Conservatives. He was correct to do so. There seems to be a funding bias against established and successful projects. What is new and innovative is not necessarily always effective, and what Donald Gorrie said had wisdom in it.
Murdo Fraser underlined the contribution that is made by the faith groups, and—despite protestations that he was not going to spend much time dealing with environmental issues—Robin Harper managed to spend 60 per cent of his speech doing so. Finally, Keith Raffan was correct to highlight the fact that the voluntary sector is not about the provision of public services on the cheap, although that is largely what it has become.
This has been a good debate. The committee report is worth while and has given us all the opportunity to recognise the massive contribution that the voluntary sector makes to Scottish society.
I thank the committee for a very good report.
The propellant for ejector seats is manufactured at Bishopton. If Hugh Henry can hang on for a little while, there will be none left and the Executive will have to find another way of putting him out the door when his time comes.
I say to Cathie Craigie that, where I come from, most volunteers are not in the Labour party—most are not in any party. Volunteering is widespread throughout society.
We must stress the need for charity law reform. Linda Fabiani mentioned that and the fact that there has been some delay in introducing that reform. Tricia Marwick emphasised the need for a rapid implementation of charity law reform.
Funding is obviously the key. Most of us have been involved with voluntary organisations and recognise sustainable funding as an absolute priority. Linda Fabiani and Johann Lamont made that point. Year-by-year allocations and delays in decisions on funding simply will not do. The last thing that voluntary organisations need is for gaps in funding to occur or for the decisions on the forthcoming financial year to be made so late in the day that the delay creates unnecessary concern and erodes confidence both in the cash provider and in the ability of the voluntary activity to continue. Such indecision saps the willingness of volunteers to continue.
When so many people are prepared to volunteer, the last thing that we want to do is to put unnecessary obstacles in their way. I had experience of an organisation in the east end of Glasgow, which began as a summer society and became an all-year cultural society. Every year, it was dogged by chronic anxiety over whether people's jobs would continue, in an area in which there were few jobs. I therefore welcome the Executive's three-year programme of funding and I hope that the approach will be passed down to local authorities, so that they will take the same view and guarantee funding for projects that they believe are worth while in themselves or which contribute to social inclusion or other objectives.
It is disappointing for many volunteers that they spend a lot of time applying for funds from different organisations, jumping through all the hoops and meeting all the criteria only to submit their application and get no money despite the fact that the next published list of funded organisations includes other projects with plans that are almost identical to theirs. I have in mind a healthy living project in Port Glasgow that applied to the Community Fund. We must try to find some way of avoiding such inconsistency.
Probably the most important issue is the relationship between the donor and the organisation that gets the money. The relationship must be one of genuine partnership, not one in which there are subordinates who get little handouts from time to time. There have been instances of voluntary organisations having mainstream services dumped on them simply because the council had no more money to continue those services. Stand-alone trusts or other organisations have been put off to the side and have then got less money from the council than they received before.
That is not the role of volunteers. It is not their function to pick up services that councils cannot afford to run. The important principle was stated earlier that the best of the voluntary organisations grow from the ground up. That must be encouraged and watered with money.
Transparency and declarations of interest in social inclusion projects have been mentioned. I do not have huge experience of social inclusion projects, but a very reputable friend of mine in the west of Scotland has been deeply involved in all sorts of social inclusion projects. He stood up at a public meeting and innocently suggested to the voluntary organisations present that they might have more freedom of action if they applied for lottery money, as that would keep them out of the clutches of councillor patronage. As a result of that, he lost much of his social inclusion partnership funding. If any members want to know where that took place, I will tell them later.
In the Parliament, we all subscribe to the principle of subsidiarity. That principle must apply at all levels. Political parties should not be able to manipulate voluntary organisations or set up front organisations as covert deliverers of their interests. The Parliament has done well on subsidiarity. The Local Government Committee, of which I was a member, assured councils that it offered no threat to their independence. The Parliament must persuade councils to apply the same principle. Those who are confident in the exercise of their power are not afraid to devolve it. To devolve power is to trust the voluntary organisations to which money has been given. As long as the appropriate financial safeguards are in place and an organisation is fulfilling its objectives, it should be allowed to get on without interference. The volunteers will grow in confidence as a result and will exercise more initiative.
The enormous economic benefit to society of the work done by all the unpaid volunteers throughout society has been mentioned. We cannot discount that work and we must do nothing to discourage it. As members know, we could all name organisations endlessly. The day after the general election last year, I went out with meals on wheels in Johnstone—that was an antidote to the night before. I learned a lot about a system in which people were going out to deliver a service and were making contact with people. They were doing a job that would otherwise have to be paid for. We owe the voluntary sector an enormous debt in cultural, social and sporting terms at every level of society. I toast the volunteers of the voluntary organisations.
I say to Bill Aitken that I believe that, far from being a poisoned chalice, social justice is every bit as much of a challenge as health. It is a privilege to make a small contribution to the work of many important people throughout Scotland. I take seriously Colin Campbell's advice about propellants and ejector seats. Unfortunately, he speaks from first-hand experience, as he told his friends in the SNP in west Renfrewshire about that and they removed him and replaced him with another candidate.
On behalf of the Executive, I welcome the Social Justice Committee's inquiry into the voluntary sector. We recognise the importance of the voluntary sector to Scottish society and, as Helen Eadie said, to the Scottish economy. I am pleased to publish today the Scottish Executive's response to that inquiry.
The Executive sees the voluntary sector as a key social partner. During the debate, many members mentioned the importance of partnership. This is not about one sector threatening another; it is about people working together for the benefit of our communities.
On a practical matter, could we receive the Government's response to a committee report earlier next time? It would be helpful if members were able to study it carefully before we spoke in the debate.
I will feed that comment back. Keith Raffan probably saw the papers at about the same time as I did, given the events of the past few days, but he makes his point well and I will pass it on.
As many members said, voluntary sector and community groups are in close touch with many parts of Scottish society and they are well placed to identify and respond to changing needs. The sector is uniquely placed to tackle many of the challenging targets that are set by the Executive and it is already a major provider and innovator in housing, child care—which Johann Lamont mentioned—and community care. If it were not for the contribution that is made by many of those organisations and individuals, our society would be much poorer. I know that Margaret Curran has played a huge role in taking that agenda forward and that she has welcomed the comments made by the Social Justice Committee. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, the minister is not able to be here today because she is being sworn in. She has taken a close personal interest in the issues that we are discussing.
We want the sector to input fully to policy development and to the delivery of services. Working in partnership is the best way in which to meet the challenges that the Executive has set.
We, too, value the independence of the sector. Lyndsay McIntosh said very specifically that there is a need to retain the independence of the sector. We recognise the outstanding contribution that is made by many thousands of people, who give of their time to serve on management committees and boards. They bring good governance and, in most cases, high ethical standards to the work of their organisations. They have made a contribution to the debate on improving standards in our society.
The Executive is committed to working in partnership with the voluntary sector. That commitment is embodied in the Scottish compact. Cathie Craigie was right to raise the issue of compacts. The partnership between the Executive and the sector must be strengthened and compacts could also make a local contribution.
The Executive's experience of the Scottish compact has been positive—although no doubt it can be improved—and we recognise the value of such arrangements. We know that a number of local authorities have agreed local compacts with the voluntary sector and we think that more local authorities should do the same. We welcome the extension of compacts and the development of volunteering policies by many local authorities and NHS boards.
From contact with groups in my area, I know about the contribution that volunteers make. There is still bureaucracy at local authority and health board level that needs to be examined and challenged in order to make it easier for people to get services. That is not about providing services "on the cheap"—as Keith Raffan said. Rather, we should recognise that the voluntary sector can make a difference in a different way. It is about complementing and supporting, rather than replacing.
We believe that the community planning process will enhance the relationships between local authorities and public agencies operating at a local level. We are committed to working together with the voluntary sector, local authorities and others to strengthen and deepen those relationships.
We acknowledge some of the comments that have been made about infrastructure. We need to strengthen the infrastructure. As several members—including Johann Lamont, Linda Fabiani, Karen Whitefield, Cathy Peattie, Keith Raffan and Murdo Fraser—have said, core funding and stability of funding are critical if good organisations are to have the assurance to plan for the future and the ability to deliver consistent services.
We have made a commitment to strengthen the infrastructure of the sector; to review funding principles and processes; to promote volunteering, in particular by young people but also by older people—as Helen Eadie said, we should not forget the important contribution that many older people make to helping others in our society; and to support measures to promote the use of new technology in the voluntary sector, including the establishment of a web-based portal.
We are strengthening the voluntary sector infrastructure, for example by doubling the funding to the national networks of councils for voluntary services and volunteer centres, and by funding key organisations such as the SCVO and Volunteer Development Scotland.
Helen Eadie raised the issue of mainstreaming. We are committed to promoting and mainstreaming voluntary sector issues across departments. That process will be reinforced and supported by a number of mechanisms and structures that are aimed at improving policy making. Those include the Scottish compact, to which I have referred, and the Scottish Executive/voluntary sector forum, which plays a crucial role in improving dialogue and understanding between the Executive and the sector.
The provision of a broad range of funding schemes, both direct and indirect, is critical. The Executive's schemes are publicised in our leaflet "A Guide for the Voluntary Sector to Scottish Executive Grants", which is updated annually. Linda Fabiani asked about section 9 and 10 funding. Section 9 grants are being reviewed and no money is available for new grants at this time. Existing projects have been continued for one year. Generally, we are committed to making decisions on grants three months before they are due to begin. The system is not perfect, but we are working to improve it. We will bear in mind the points that Linda Fabiani made.
We are sponsoring Volunteer Development Scotland to manage free SCRO checks—which were mentioned during the debate—for volunteers in the voluntary sector. A number of speakers—Lyndsay McIntosh, Robert Brown, Karen Whitefield and Donald Gorrie—referred to problems with regulation and bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, I do not have time to take an intervention.
Johann Lamont raised the issue of regulation and training. We need to avoid having excessive regulation and interference, but we must impose minimum acceptable standards to ensure that organisations have an infrastructure that is capable of giving security not just to those who volunteer and provide services, but to the recipients of services. A balance needs to be struck.
Providing financial resources for the services that I have mentioned is one of the main ways in which the Executive supports the voluntary sector. We have made available increased resources across the board. We have increased funding for voluntary sector infrastructure from £4 million to £10 million, and for direct grant funding from £23 million to £39 million annually. That money is in addition to some £304 million that is made available indirectly to the voluntary sector through Communities Scotland, NHS boards and local enterprise companies, for example.
We have made a commitment to funding for the voluntary sector. We recognise that there is a problem with short-term funding and that more stability and longer funding cycles are needed. We hope that local authorities and others will emulate our example. We need to take a strategic view of funding.
Today, we are publishing our response to the consultation on our review of direct funding of the voluntary sector. That response sets out our plans to reform the arrangements for direct funding of the voluntary sector in Scotland. We shall adopt a number of principles and processes to make it easier for voluntary organisations to apply for funding.
Because of lack of time, I will unfortunately have to skip some of the issues that have been raised. Those include crucial issues such as the funding and supporting of organisations in rural areas. Johann Lamont, Linda Fabiani and others referred to the contribution that is made by the social economy and we will consider that issue closely. I have worked in the social economy, know what contribution it makes and have a personal interest in it. I will be pleased to follow that through. Members have referred to the need to provide support for volunteering and I will not repeat the points that have been made.
The Executive has an ambitious but realistic vision for the voluntary sector and we are making a firm commitment to back that vision with active support. The sector is vital to our shared social justice agenda. It engages people in society and provides opportunities for the expression of active citizenship. We now have the opportunity to build on a good working relationship with the sector.
I will finish by putting on record my appreciation, and that of colleagues such as Margaret Curran and Iain Gray, for the hard work, commitment and energy that the voluntary sector has brought to our work. We thank the sector for that. The committee's report has played a major part in giving proper recognition to the sector's very valuable work throughout Scotland.
I pay tribute to Johann Lamont for valiantly introducing the debate, despite the fact that she is feeling rather wonky today. I welcome our Shug to the social justice team and welcome back Margaret Curran from her swearing-in session. It has been a long, slow struggle to the top for her, but she has finally made it.
Like other speakers, when taking evidence from around Scotland I was impressed by the passion, enthusiasm, commitment and professionalism of people working in the voluntary sector. As Johann Lamont indicated, the sector is diverse and flexible. Despite obvious financial constraints, it delivers first-class services through trained and highly motivated staff. As Johann added, the heart of the sector is vital. It must not be patronised, but it should be celebrated and taken seriously.
The issue of funding played a major part in today's debate. Johann Lamont talked about the need for honesty when considering what the sector requires to function effectively. Real costs must be considered and core funding is crucial. I was heartened by much that the minister said on that issue.
The voluntary sector's need for moneys to cover salaries, training, security, sick pay, pensions, heating and lighting costs, and, of course, inflation must be recognised. Keith Raffan talked about not reinventing the wheel and not—[Interruption.] It would help if I could read my writing—I should have been a doctor rather than a politician. Keith said that the voluntary sector does not exist to fund the statutory sector "on the cheap". He went on to say that we need to share best practice in the voluntary sector to avoid duplication and to ensure continuity. I am sure that all of us echo those sentiments.
Linda Fabiani raised the issue of section 9 and 10 grants, and Hugh Henry dealt with that adequately. She also talked about the worry and pressure that voluntary groups feel when funding periods draw to a close and redundancy notices have to be sent out. Funding streams are too insecure and in many cases funding is unrealistic. Time scales for funding bids are unrealistic and great strain is placed on resources and the skills of people who work in the voluntary sector. Although innovation and new initiatives should not be the sole criteria for funding, groups should not be funded just because they always have been. That point was made in evidence that the committee took at Inverness. A balance needs to be struck.
Concerns were raised in evidence that funding streams are too insecure to guarantee loans and benefit from the social investment Scotland scheme. I hope that the Executive will consider that issue in more detail.
Cathy Peattie talked about groups having to reinvent themselves and develop skills in response to continual changes in criteria for funding. I hope that we will tackle that waste of resources.
Donald Gorrie said that funding was "an absolute disgrace" and that the sector is often seen
"as a competitor and possibly even as an enemy"
by organisations in the statutory sector. We must take that point seriously.
Robert Brown proposed the establishment of a voluntary sector development fund. That seems like a robust idea.
Brian Monteith touched on the New Opportunities Fund. It is heartening to see that the fund intends to implement the committee's recommendation that three to five-year funding periods be introduced, to enable realistic planning and the establishment of management provisions. Of course, the fund could have gone further to ensure that the poorest communities benefit disproportionately from resources. Later in my speech, I will take issue with Mike Rumbles on that point.
A number of members referred to the independence of the sector and I am pleased that the minister recognised that. There will always be a trade-off between an organisation having the independence to follow its own agenda and the reality of contracting with those who fund groups. The role of an effective and efficient management committee is important in ensuring that statutory agencies are aware of the voluntary sector and the culture in which it works.
It is fundamental that there should be equality of esteem between the sector and the Parliament. The Parliament has already established a compact with local government to ensure equality of esteem between both parties. Perhaps that should be widened to include the voluntary sector.
Lyndsay McIntosh expressed concern about the possibility of parts of the voluntary sector being absorbed into government. She talked about how the sector could become beholden to public agencies. I echo the point that voluntary organisations should be seen as partners, rather than subjects.
In Inverness, the comments were made that the compact is invisible, that it might as well not exist and that it is not worth the paper that it is written on. That concerned me and other committee members; we should address how the compact is working on the ground. The concern was emphasised that if a project is successful, local authorities or other agencies might take over the work when funding is exhausted and might take the credit for success.
Mike Rumbles talked about rurality. He seemed to have the hump about not having been notified of the Social Justice Committee's visit to his domain. However, I have here a copy of a letter that was sent to Mr Rumbles on 9 October. The letter says:
"Dear Mike Rumbles
Social Justice Committee – Voluntary Sector Inquiry – Site Visits
You may be aware that the Scottish Parliament's Social Justice Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the Voluntary Sector …
A series of fact-finding visits is planned to each of the 8 Parliamentary regions and I am writing to advise you that members of the Committee will be visiting Aberdeen on Monday 22 October to meet with local groups and experience what is happening "on the ground" … This letter is to inform you that this visit is being held in your area."
It supplied details of who to contact if Mr Rumbles wanted further information—sorry, Mike.
In the Highlands and Islands, but not in Aberdeen, the concern was expressed that peripherality was not recognised. In Inverness, the sector was described as
"woefully inadequate to meet the demands of the region."
Concern was expressed that a flat rate of £60,000 for strategic planning—divided into eight or nine groups because of the geography of the Highlands and Islands, compared with two or three groups in less rural areas—made it impossible to fund the sector Highland-wide.
Concern was also expressed that the committee was a central belt group and was not concerned about rurality. I would like Mike Rumbles to focus on the committee's recommendations on page 17 of the report, which state:
"(i) The Scottish Executive should clarify how the problem of rurality is dealt with in funding arrangements for the Voluntary Sector.
(ii) The Scottish Executive should explore alternative ways of communication for voluntary sector organisations in rural areas, and whether there are more suitable ways of providing services in these areas."
I am happy to come to the substantive point of my speech. I was making the point that the report was a missed opportunity. Although the report says that the Scottish Executive should "clarify", it does not make any suggestions arising from its investigation. It has come up with nothing, except to ask the Executive to investigate.
With respect, we based the report on the evidence that we took. We wanted to give the Executive the opportunity to come back on it. That does not mean that the subject will be done and dusted for all eternity. I am sure that other committee members will take on board the comments that Mike Rumbles has made. There are no problems with considering the matter further.
Robert Brown focused on the regulatory burdens that are imposed on the sector and the burden that the national insurance increase will have on smaller organisations. He talked passionately—as he has done many times before—about the impact of legislation on citizens advice bureaux. He made a plea for legislation on debt advice services.
Other members talked about the lack of transparency in the regulatory framework, which we must address. Smaller organisations might find it difficult to be good employers that adhere to employment law. Staff in the voluntary sector often work longer than they are paid for and we must address that.
Positive comments were made regarding the voluntary issues unit; people said that there were good relations with the Executive. However, some felt that the local infrastructure was often weak, that resources were inadequate and that organisations were being dragged away from the objectives for which they were founded. The sector is keen to know not just what decisions local authorities make—particularly regarding funding—but why they are made.
Linda Fabiani mentioned social inclusion partnerships and Cathy Peattie talked about the need for black and ethnic minority people to be included in discussions on infrastructure.
Volunteering is not cost free and it is important to review the level of expenses that are provided to volunteers to attract people from socially excluded and far-flung rural areas—I address that point to Mike Rumbles. In many places volunteers are in short supply, not only in remote areas but in Lothian, which was mentioned in evidence-taking sessions.
The needs of disabled volunteers are not considered as much as they should be and we have to consider the possible divides between paid staff and volunteers and the fear that some paid staff have of litigation for negligence. We have to raise awareness of the benefits of volunteering and make an effort to retain as many experienced volunteers as possible.
The minister will be aware that there are concerns about the apparent lack of progress of the Scottish Charity Law Review Commission. The front-page headline of last Friday's edition of Third Force News said:
"Sector demands progress on charity law reforms".
Councillor Jean McFadden, who chaired the Scottish Charity Law Review Commission, has made clear her frustration that a year after its report, which contained 114 recommendations, was published no proposed legislation is in place. The SCVO echoed those concerns. Johann Lamont mentioned a timetable for making progress on that and Linda Fabiani echoed that point. I hope that the minister will take that on board.
At the Social Justice Committee's meeting on 12 December, the then deputy minister said with reference to the social economy:
"Stephen Maxwell from the SCVO is carrying out that review and will report to the minister later this month. The review will look at the contribution of the social economy to service provision and economic prosperity."—[Official Report, Social Justice Committee, 12 December 2001; c 2722.]
Although the committee made it clear that it does not doubt the Executive's commitment to the review, concerns continue to be expressed by the committee, the SCVO and others about the continued delay in its completion and publication. As Johann Lamont pointed out, the co-operative and mutual sector is important.
In conclusion—you are giving me the cold stare, Presiding Officer—I will mention just one other thing. We must, as Johann Lamont said, avoid paralysis by consultation. Evidence suggests that realistic time scales are needed for organisations to canvass opinions. Linda Fabiani echoed that and said that it took the Executive, with all its resources, two months to respond to our recommendations.
On behalf of the committee, I thank Johann Lamont, for convening it so well; the witnesses, who gave up so much time, effort and energy to provide evidence; the ministers, for responding so positively to our recommendations; and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.
The member did everything but declare the fête open.