Official Report 378KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-00356, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, on strengthening Scotland’s partnership with the third sector. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
15:36
Last week, I had the privilege of attending the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations Scottish charity awards. The positive impact of the third sector and the incredible people in it was on display once again that night, as it is in every community, every day, right across Scotland. Their work and volunteering change lives, strengthen communities and provide support to people where and when they need it most. However, to be clear, for that support to continue, a sustainable, thriving and independent third sector is essential. It is on that note that we will be supporting the amendments from the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Greens and Labour today.
The third sector works across a huge number of policy areas, from healthcare and education to reducing the impact of child poverty and advancing climate action. As one of our key partners, the third sector directly contributes to the Government’s four missions. What sets the third sector apart is its deep knowledge of communities, which makes it uniquely placed to identify and deliver real solutions. That knowledge cannot be replicated by any Government, national or local.
The Government recognises that, to tackle the biggest challenges of the day, we need to work in partnership with the sector. Further, we recognise that we have a responsibility to protect the independence of the sector and respect the remarkable work of those organisations. The Government fully supports the rights of charities to campaign on behalf of those whom they represent and to influence changes in policy, regardless of their funding status. Questioning the integrity of the third sector erodes trust and harms communities at a time when community support could not be more important.
To that end, the Government will formalise the relationship to demonstrate the value that we place in third sector bodies, not simply as service providers but as partners in shaping, informing and delivering. That ambition forms the foundations of our third sector partnership agreement. It is important to recognise that support for the third sector is not new for the Government. Over the previous parliamentary session, the Government took meaningful steps to strengthen and support the sector, most significantly our ongoing commitment to fairer funding. That delivered significant progress to embed multiyear funding across Government, supporting organisations as diverse as Scottish Mountain Rescue, a number of disabled people’s organisations and Apex Scotland, to name but a few.
I have been thinking about what the cabinet secretary just said about questioning the integrity of the third sector. I assume that she does not mean that it is inappropriate for us, as members of the Scottish Parliament, to question the public funds that third sector bodies and charities receive, and what those bodies are doing with those moneys and whether they are delivering the expected outcomes from the funds that are expended. I assume that she does not mean that, because otherwise she would be trying to tie the hands of Parliament as we do our business of scrutinising the work of third sector organisations.
I am certainly not suggesting that people should not question the third sector or, indeed, the Scottish Government on the funding that we give to it. I am saying that some third sector organisations will welcome Scottish Government priorities, some will think that we do not go far enough, some will think that we go too far and some will disagree with us entirely. That is utterly appropriate and is, in fact, a valuable and commendable part of the system that we have in Parliament and is helpful for all politicians.
I recognise that multiyear funding alone does not make for a sustainable sector. Many organisations face uncertainty and funding delays, which impact on service delivery and staffing decisions ahead of financial years. Although that issue is not wholly devolved to the Scottish Government, it is a priority area for improvement. In the past financial year, we have, despite a compressed timetable, worked to ensure that as many organisations as possible received their funding decisions early. Those improvements have been recognised by the sector, and the feedback has been that the action that was taken showed a strong amount of care for the system as a whole. However, we know that we need to go further.
At the heart of the third sector are its volunteers. The first week in June marked volunteers week, which was a chance to celebrate the extraordinary contribution of volunteers across Scotland. Volunteers, including trustees, are the backbone of Scotland’s third sector, and many of the activities and support that we rely on would simply not exist without them. I am delighted to highlight that, through the £2.2 million volunteering support fund, we are helping 116 organisations to grow and diversify their volunteer base.
Alongside steps on fairer funding and volunteering, significant steps have been taken to strengthen the framework in which the sector operates. The Charities (Regulation and Administration) (Scotland) Act 2023 has now fully commenced, and the updated legislation improves the public’s access to information about a charity’s operations, provides the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator with stronger powers and aligns Scottish charity law more closely with charity regulation elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Together, those actions demonstrate the clear commitment to supporting the third sector to deliver for Scotland.
Successful collaboration between the Government, local authorities and the third sector is delivering real change. Collaboration is central to eradicating child poverty, which is a defining mission for this Government and not one that we can deliver alone. Through the new £20 million whole family support third sector delivery fund, the Government will enable third sector organisations to deliver holistic wraparound services for families who are experiencing or at risk of poverty. Applications to the fund are currently being assessed, and I look forward to announcing the successful applicants in the coming weeks. Subject to the agreement with the successful organisations, I expect that the funding will move to being allocated on a multiyear basis.
That collaborative approach speaks directly to and aligns with the Government’s ambition on public service reform, which will empower those working in front-line services to deliver for people. Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform set out the Government’s vision for more effective, person-centred services. The third sector is central to achieving that vision. As members have highlighted, further work is needed across Government and with funders and commissioners to ensure that funding, procurement and policy approaches truly enable organisations to thrive in an integrated system.
I draw attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests: until last month, I was the chair of Cranhill Development Trust.
I very much welcome any moves that we can take to reduce bureaucracy for a lot of small organisations, such as Cranhill Development Trust. We want to see people being able to get on with the job, rather than having to spend huge amounts of time filling in forms to apply for grants and doing the analysis after that. I welcome what the Government has said and look forward to seeing such changes being borne out, because they would be very welcome indeed.
David Linden made a very important point that relates particularly to—but not only to—smaller organisations. The aim is to let them get on with the job; appropriate reporting and analysis is part of that work, but it must not become overburdensome and prevent them from getting on with their very important jobs. I very much agree with the sentiment behind David Linden’s remarks.
I welcome that the Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform will shortly meet the SCVO to explore opportunities around public service reform, and the partnership will align with the public service reform programme to strengthen collaboration. I also welcome that other charities have proactively reached out to the cabinet secretary, which once again demonstrates the sector’s readiness to innovate for the benefit of all those whom we are here to serve.
Alongside that progress, I must make clear the importance of listening to the concerns that the sector shares. We have repeatedly heard that the current system is unsustainable. The demand for services continues to increase, as do challenging financial pressures, which are worsened by costs such as the UK Government’s decision to hike employer national insurance contributions, placing pressure on employees and volunteers.
We recognise that the Scottish Government has a shared responsibility with the sector and other third sector funders not only to deliver services but to strengthen the foundations on which delivery relies. In February, I announced my intention to co-design a third sector partnership agreement. Following a strong endorsement of that vision in the recent election, I am delighted to take that work forward and, ultimately, create a strategic partnership of equals. Importantly, the partnership will include the whole sector; it will not reach only organisations with a direct funding relationship with the Government.
Work is at an early stage, but we have begun to identify key themes that will shape the first phase of engagement. Those themes will not dictate the outcome; instead, they will provide a baseline for open, meaningful and collaborative discussion.
First, on developing a partnership of equals, as I have emphasised, we want the third sector to actively inform and shape policy development. That means supporting transparency, sharing knowledge and embedding a culture in the Government that values the sector’s contribution.
Secondly, to support a strong and independent sector, we will explore governance, leadership and workforce resilience to ensure that the sector is equipped to meet future challenges within an effective regulatory environment.
The third theme is improving financial sustainability. The fiscal environment continues to place significant pressures on the sector, and the issue is recognised as a key driver of instability. We will encourage honest conversations about those challenges, identify opportunities for improvement and build on our fairer funding approach.
However, we must bear in mind that the Scottish Government does not receive multiyear funding and that providing multiyear grants for any organisation, including those in the third sector, takes away flexibility within the remainder of budgets. I ask members to bear that in mind, as we move through budgetary discussions, if they are requesting further multiyear settlements.
The cabinet secretary will know that multiyear funding is the third sector’s number 1 ask. Although she is technically correct in saying that the Scottish Government does not receive multiyear funding from Westminster through the block grant, we can predict 95 per cent or more of the quantum from year to year, so surely there is more scope to give the third sector greater clarity through multiyear funding.
That is exactly why we have been trying to provide a greater level of multiyear funding. Murdo Fraser has gone through enough budget rounds to know that there are always changes to UK Government decisions and to UK budgets, so we have to wait for the UK Government’s budget to be passed before we know what is happening with the Scottish Government’s budget. We cannot get away from those intrinsic links. I say that to demonstrate the context, not as an excuse not to deliver further multiyear funding, which is definitely the direction of travel that the Government wishes to go in.
Ensuring accountability at all levels of the partnership is another important part of the framework. We will work with the sector to develop appropriate monitoring and evaluation, which ties into the point that David Linden made, so that the delivery of the partnership is embedded across the Government and the third sector. I am also committed to ensuring that voices from across the sector contribute to shaping a partnership that is rooted in trust and respect, that supports the sector’s long-term sustainability and that drives better outcomes.
I have heard calls from some to give the partnership a statutory footing akin to that of the Welsh third sector scheme. I am also aware of calls from those in the third sector in Wales to review that scheme. We have an opportunity to learn from the Welsh approach and work with the sector to explore what would work best for Scotland. Although I will not take that option off the table, I suggest that giving something a statutory footing is not always the most effective approach and that more work is needed to get this right. Legislation is both time and resource intensive. The Parliament would rightly expect us to continue to progress third sector policies such as those relating to charity law, volunteering and fairer funding, and I would not want the development of legislation on the framework to impede any of the wider work that the Government intends to take forward to support the third sector.
A sustainable and thriving third sector benefits us all. It benefits the workforce, it benefits the people of Scotland and it benefits the Government, through stronger delivery, better outcomes and more resilient communities. That is why the development of the partnership is such an important way to demonstrate and implement our support for the third sector right across Scotland, in every community.
I move,
That the Parliament commends the essential role that the third sector plays in supporting people and communities; recognises the contribution that the third sector provides to the delivery of many Scottish Government key priorities, including eradicating child poverty; acknowledges that the Scottish Government understands it has a shared responsibility alongside other funders and those who contract out to the third sector to take action to ensure that the sector is sustainable; agrees that a Third Sector Partnership Agreement provides the opportunity to formalise the relationship between the Scottish Government and the third sector, building upon the Scottish Government’s progress in delivering on its Fairer Funding commitments to date and responding to the views of the sector, and agrees that the Third Sector Partnership will be co-designed with third sector stakeholders to embed their knowledge and experience, demonstrating the value that the Scottish Government places on the sector.
I remind those who wish to move amendments or speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button.
15:50
I declare an interest as a trustee of the John MacDougall Mesothelioma Trust and the Glenrothes & Area Heritage Centre. I thank the minister for her comments.
As a Fife councillor, I am all too aware of the work that people in the third sector do, much of it unpaid, to step in where council budgets and personnel have, unfortunately, been stretched too thin. I think that everyone in the chamber agrees that third sector providers become vital lifelines in many communities because of that. We all want to do the right thing in supporting them. The reason I lodged my amendment is that I hope to work constructively with the Government on this important issue, as too much is at stake for it to involve the usual Punch and Judy politics of previous sessions.
My feedback rests on three main points: first, the future structure and framework of any proposed funding model, which has been touched on; secondly, the role of local government; and, finally, our expectations for the third sector.
On my first point, I truly believe that no problem can be solved simply by throwing money at it. Although more money is, of course, welcome for anyone who receives it, the way in which the money is given and the conditions that are imposed clearly have massive ramifications for service delivery. Speaking to representatives of colleges and other organisations across my region that are dependent on public funding has been a massive eye-opener for me. A big problem that I have noticed across most Government funding projects is that they lose sight of the issues that they hope to address.
For example, I recently raised with the First Minister the fact that, although colleges and employers receive funding from the Scottish Government, it is structured in such a way that it disincentivises the creation of new apprenticeships, and it does not guarantee the long-term security of some campuses that are at risk of closing. The point that I tried to make then, which the First Minister either did not pick up or refused to answer, was not that the sector needs more money but that the funding structure for how the money is spent is completely at odds with the needs of the college sector and skills development in Scotland. In short, it is all about priorities.
I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government will consider multiyear funding as a minimum standard, as has been advocated by organisations such as Citizens Advice, so that providers can plan services years ahead instead of just crossing their fingers at the end of every Scottish or local government budget. We also need to be aware of the vital role that our councils play in the execution and funding of those services.
Many of us in the chamber have served, or continue to serve, on councils in our respective areas, and we all know that the constituents we represent come from communities with different priorities and different needs—in different council areas or even in neighbouring wards. Too often, policies are ring fenced when the funding from the Government needs to be bespoke to the needs of different council areas. We cannot ignore that. Councils are sometimes forced to use Government funding for certain areas although it is unneeded and they have other entire service areas that are literally dying for want of essential cash.
The duplication of funding and service provision is too common a problem. Therefore, we must ensure that our councils and third sector providers can properly co-ordinate funding and activities so as to streamline service delivery. I would argue that that discussion should be held not just between the Scottish Government and one collective body or sector. All 32 of Scotland’s councils need to have their own unique input into how future funding can best be used in their communities. That emphasises my point about the longevity of third sector providers. We cannot have a situation in which communities are wholly reliant on those services only for Government money to dry up and councils to be unable to fund them.
My final point is about having realistic conversations about what we expect from our third sector. Much of the third sector prides itself on the unique way in which it delivers its services. It is a major part of the appeal of third sector provider services, and it is why they can be favoured over similar services offered by public bodies. However, I feel that we are moving to a point at which third sector provider services are becoming a permanent and necessary appendage of local public service offerings and not just a welcome addition. A deeper conversation about that is needed, as it will change the relationship that we all have with the third sector, and I hope that we can have that conversation not too long after today’s debate.
There should be a commitment by every organisation that is in receipt of Government funding to demonstrate full value for money, to ensure that their presence represents an overall saving from public investment. I lodged my amendment as an open hand to all members in the chamber to engage in more forward thinking when it comes to supporting the third sector. We all value third sector providers. Some of us have needed them, and we, on the Reform benches, are certainly not opposed to funding them where they can fill a genuine gap in local public services. However, we cannot keep going down the same path of funding first and worrying about sustainability later. Sustainability must be baked into the funding from the very start; it must not be just another bumper slogan attached to an obscure policy memorandum. We must prove to the public that we can do things differently, that we can work constructively together on the issue and that we are listening to them. That is why I hope that members will support my amendment.
I move amendment S7M-00356.2, to insert at end:
“; further agrees that a key part of sustainability can include long-term support for organisations, beyond initial funding periods, where there is clear evidence that continued support delivers continued value; recognises the potential efficiencies that organisations can make with long-term budget certainty, and believes that organisations that are in receipt of Scottish Government support and public funds have to commit to deliver the same value for money and reform agenda that was agreed by Parliament.”
15:56
Today’s debate on Scotland’s partnership with the third sector is welcome. I hope that we can have an open and collaborative discussion on the best approach to strengthening Scotland’s partnership with a sector that is vital to the economy and society.
The third sector is at the forefront of efforts to tackle poverty, build social cohesion and protect the environment. From grass-roots groups to health and social care organisations, communities depend on the sector for support and advice. These charities and organisations can make a real and lasting difference to families and individuals right across Scotland, and they deserve to be respected and seen for the contribution that they provide.
Scottish Labour welcomes the Government’s motion and its commitment to establish a third sector partnership agreement. Formalising the relationship between the third sector and the Government is long overdue. Scotland is the only part of the UK not to have an established formal partnership with the voluntary sector. Although the approaches taken in Wales and Northern Ireland and by the UK Government are all different, it was welcome to hear the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and Housing speak about the Welsh approach. We hope that we can learn lessons from some of those agreements, which might help us to take forward some of the points that we want to action.
The agreement presents an opportunity to reset the relationship with the sector, align priorities and deliver on some of the sector’s long-term asks, such as its calls for the introduction of multiyear funding arrangements, which we have all touched on. That is why Scottish Labour has lodged an add-on amendment that makes it clear that multiyear funding should be “foundational” to the agreement. Multiyear funding not only provides more certainty for the sector and allows for better planning but enables charities and organisations to take preventative measures, and it provides long-term savings by removing the costs of repeatedly having to apply for single-year funding—I think that we all recognise that. The sector has consistently asked for multiyear funding, and I hope that the Government will agree that delivery of that should be a top priority and an essential part of the agreement.
Our amendment asks that a greater requirement for due diligence on fair work principles be embedded in the framework. We discussed that in the previous parliamentary session. Given the precariousness of third sector funding, workers often have shorter contracts and less job security. If we are serious about strengthening the Government’s relationship with the sector, consideration of workers’ rights, job protection and proper pay and conditions must be at the forefront. I know that the cabinet secretary accepts that point, and we, on the Labour benches, will do what we can to work with the Government on it.
That is why it is also crucial that the third sector is involved in co-designing the agreement. I welcome the commitment in the Government’s motion to ensure that stakeholders are involved in, and not omitted from, the design process. Current experience from within the third sector tells us that organisations often feel that they do not have a strong relationship with public bodies and that their experience is sometimes not positive. Last week’s debate about the public service reform agenda showed that the Government believes that the third sector will be key to that work, which means that working together is essential. Mutual respect and shared recognition must be at the forefront of the partnership agreement, so I really welcome the commitment from the Government and the cabinet secretary to include the third sector in the co-design process.
As in any partnership, the detail and delivery will be fundamental to success. The partnership must be supported by clear accountability mechanisms and there must be strong leadership at the forefront to drive ambitions and delivery. I have heard about some of that from the cabinet secretary today, and I hope that we can work together on it. The key asks from the sector include the setting out of a clear timetable and road map for developing and implementing the agreement, with clear lines of accountability within the Scottish Government.
There is also the question of who will be subject to the agreement and how smaller independent organisations will be represented and heard. I heard about that from some third sector organisations when I was a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. In my experience, some smaller organisations punch above their weight, so we need to include them.
In the past, we have raised the question of how public funds are distributed to the third sector. Are they used effectively? How do we ensure that local charities are prioritised instead of funding always going to national charities or lobbying groups? Perhaps the cabinet secretary or the minister could provide more detail on that during their closing remarks. How do we focus on the grass-roots organisations that are right on the front line? I would welcome the Government’s thoughts on how we can go beyond the larger groups that we usually engage with.
The Liberal Democrat amendment refers to the fact that smaller charities can find that engagement more “difficult”, and Scottish Labour will support that amendment today, because we agree that some of the smaller grass-roots organisations often miss out on funding. We must be clear about whether that is because of the time and effort required to apply repeatedly for funding or whether it is because some of the larger organisations just tend to be favoured. We need to understand that.
I again welcome the Government’s motion and the commitment to the third sector, which has faced precarious short-term funding and has criticised Parliament for that. Today’s motion and many of the amendments look towards a more financially sustainable approach. As others have said, third sector organisations often fill gaps in statutory services. In the light of the public sector reform agenda, the value and role of the third sector must be part of our conversation and part of the development and delivery of the partnership agreement that we have been talking about.
I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate and hope that we can work together to establish a really good working relationship with the third sector, because that will, in turn, mean that our communities will do better.
I move amendment S7M-00356.1, to insert at end:
“; and believes that multi-year funding and stronger due diligence on fair work principles should be foundational to a new Third Sector Partnership Agreement.”
16:03
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which says that I am a member of Glasgow City Council. I thank the cabinet secretary for collaborating with the Greens on this important motion.
I begin by thanking the third sector workforce, who are there for us day in, day out. They are the ones who step up when schools close, when the national health service is stretched to its limit and long after the police leave. They ensure that the vulnerable have a safe bed for the night, provide solace to people fleeing domestic abuse, listen to the voices of young people and stand side by side with children experiencing poverty. They do not just provide services; they guide people through the most traumatic experiences of their lives. I also thank them for their expertise ahead of this debate—most notably the SCVO, the Corra Foundation, Volunteer Scotland and the Poverty Alliance.
There is one unifying experience among staff who work in the third sector in Scotland, regardless of whether they are specialists in crisis support or in advancing human rights, and that is the experience of funding. Entry-level jobs in the third sector are routinely part time and temporary with one-year contracts, as Carol Mochan pointed out, and that is a direct consequence of how the Scottish Government and other bodies structure their funding. Funding is isolated and it is often provided for single projects with tightly restricted budgets, which completely ignores the charity’s core costs. What about the maternity cover, the human resources costs and the legal requirements for the charity simply to exist?
Core funding for charities is essential, yet it remains painfully elusive. For people working in the third sector, those precarious contracts create a gruelling treadmill. For decades, that has driven good, passionate staff away to other sectors that offer them stability. However, it does not have to be like that.
Nowhere is the crushing precarity of short-term funding felt more acutely than in services tackling violence against women and girls. As former chair of the violence against women and girls partnership in Glasgow, I wrote to the former Minister for Equalities, Kaukab Stewart. Although we were successful in securing inflationary increases for that financial year for those sectors, the reality is that that sticking-plaster funding is no longer enough. We must fairly and sustainably fund the third sector for the life-saving work that it delivers.
I take a moment to pay tribute to Kaukab Stewart for her historic time as the first woman of colour to be elected to this Parliament and as a tireless, authentic champion for equality.
Earlier this week, I met Sisters Against Cuts, which is a grass-roots feminist campaign that is fighting the closure of the women’s service at Murray’s Initiative. As my colleague Iris Duane pointed out, it is a vital trauma-informed sanctuary for survivors of gender-based violence, domestic abuse and addiction. A service user shared her reality with me, and I thank her for trusting me to share her experience. She said:
“Whenever we ask for support, we are told these cuts are due to tough choices, but why are women’s services always the first to be attacked? Murray’s keeps us alive. After fleeing domestic abuse, being homeless for two years with two disabled children and surviving rape, this service was my lifeline. We just want to live free from violence and recover with dignity.”
Do tough choices mean abandoning women who have survived the unthinkable?
The system is fundamentally broken. When will the Government move past temporary fixes and provide multiyear, inflation-proof funding that will keep such lifelines open? I am pleased that the cabinet secretary indicated in her speech that there will be some changes in multiyear funding.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that the SCVO’s 2026 manifesto calls on the Scottish Government to bolster the third sector and ensure the survival of what are essential, often life-saving charities. The SCVO says that that should be underpinned in statute, and I agree. I respectfully disagree with the cabinet secretary’s point that it is a time and resource-intensive experience to put legislation through this Parliament. The two things can go in tandem. There is a glaring lack of consistency between some Government departments in relation to legislation and strategies, and it is pushing the sector to the brink.
Since 1999, Wales has legally embedded third sector collaboration into its government. Through a 25-member council that meets the Welsh Government twice a year, the scheme provides charities with high-value recognition, strengthening accountability and cross-Government co-operation. We can learn from our devolved nation counterparts.
The First Minister’s decision to create a Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform signals that cuts are coming. However, we know from decades of austerity that, when statutory services are slashed, the third sector is left to plug the gaps, acting as the last line of defence for our most vulnerable.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will respectfully not take an intervention in this debate, but I would be happy to have a conversation with the cabinet secretary offline.
If the Government is truly looking for efficiencies, it should look at how it allocates its money. As I mentioned, I am pleased to hear that multiyear funding is being looked at. The Corra Foundation has said that simply moving to a default of multiyear funding structures would save an astonishing £900 million that the third sector wastes on the endless annual application cycle. Carol Mochan also mentioned that. If we truly want to transform public services, we must start to fund our third sector sustainably. I welcome the beginning of that, which the cabinet secretary confirmed today.
The job of third sector organisations is, of course, much bigger than being on the front line. The policy work that is undertaken by many charities in Scotland offers a truly unique insight into people’s lived experience.
I have mentioned and outlined the unifying piece that we have heard throughout, which is that of funding. The crux of the Green amendment is for a transition to multiyear funding as a default. The primary barrier to multiyear funding is that the Scottish Government is restricted by single-year allocations from the Westminster Government, and financial stability is restricted by the UK Government’s failure to reimburse to our third sector the £75 million annual cost of increased employer national insurance contributions. Although long-term funding remains our absolute aspiration, Scottish Labour must also work with us to demand both a fairer multiyear settlement and the full mitigation of those NICs from their Westminster colleagues.
I move amendment S7M-00356.5, to insert at end:
“; believes that the third sector would benefit from a transition to multi-year, simplified, flexible funding models that considers inflationary increases and covers full operating costs as the default; calls on the UK Government to reimburse Scottish third sector organisations for the cost of increased employer NICs, which are currently estimated at £75 million per year; recognises that those working in the third sector, such as organisations addressing violence against women and girls or supporting migrants, carers and disabled people, are also experiencing multiple and overlapping inequalities, secondary trauma and harm, and that they would benefit from an approach to third sector funding that includes the Real Living Wage and fair work principles, and further recognises that some third sector organisations, particularly those working with marginalised communities such as trans people and migrants, are experiencing threats to the safety of their staff, volunteers and service users.”
16:11
I welcome the debate and I pay tribute, as others across the parties have done, to all who work in the third sector. It is a reality that, without the third sector and its organisations, Scottish society and our economy would be much poorer. Indeed, across many parts of the public sector—particularly in areas such as health, social care or education—were it not for the contribution of third sector organisations, the Government would not be able to deliver many of its policy objectives.
I could namecheck many organisations, but I will restrict myself to one, because I visited it very recently: the Strathmore Centre for Youth Development in Blairgowrie—SCYD—which does so much good work for youngsters who need support. It celebrated its 25th birthday just last month, and I had the privilege of attending to see, once again, the excellent work that it does.
As has already been said in the debate, the third sector is full of individuals who are working hard with very limited resources. Many organisations depend on volunteers, whom we should salute for giving up their spare time to help others. That is a contribution of incalculable benefit to the Scottish economy.
However, the reality is that the third sector is in crisis, as anyone who engages with it will testify. According to Third Force News, 81 per cent of charities and voluntary organisations face financial challenges, while the Scottish third sector tracker has found that charities face a triple threat of rising demand, falling income and rising costs. In the meantime, the Scottish National Party Government has cut third sector funding in real terms. The amount of cash has fallen by £177 million in real terms—5 per cent of the total—between 2021 and 2023.
Today, the cabinet secretary has talked about a new third sector partnership agreement, and we look forward to hearing more about the detail of that, as will those in the sector. There is certainly a case for a reset and a new approach in respect of a number of different issues.
First, I will address the question of funding. The overall quantum of funding is important, but it is only part of the story. The number 1 issue that we hear from organisations—we have heard it already in this debate—is the issue of security of multiyear funding. Over the years, I have met too many bodies that complain of a hand-to-mouth existence and rely on year-to-year financial settlements. I can quote examples of organisations that are already well into the new financial year before they even know how much cash they will get in funding. That makes life extremely difficult for managers, those who organise financial projections and staff who are working without any ongoing job security. That means that those organisations regularly have to issue redundancy notices. Inevitably, that leads to experienced and valuable staff looking for jobs elsewhere, to try to get job security, while they await decisions from the Government, local authorities or other public agencies.
I heard with great interest what the cabinet secretary has had to say today about multiyear funding. However, we have been hearing that for more than a decade, and it has not been delivered. The SNP had a previous commitment to deliver fairer funding by 2026—by this year—but, so far, all we have seen is a pilot scheme worth £130 million over two years. That is the biggest single change that would make a real difference to the sector. Holly Bruce made an important point about the amount of money that the sector would save if that multiyear funding was put in place, because the sector would not have the administrative cost of issuing redundancy notices and potentially losing staff as a result.
In her response to my earlier intervention, the cabinet secretary said that the Scottish Government does not get multiyear funding from the UK Government. Undoubtedly, that is usually the case, but we know the Scottish Government’s budget—we know, overwhelmingly, what the value of it will be—and, although there are in-year revisions, inevitably those in-year revisions put the budget up, not down, so I think that there is much more flexibility in relation to the solutions that the Government could find.
We also need to ensure that third sector groups that are in receipt of Government funds do not then feel bound to support Government policy—a point that is referenced in the Liberal Democrat amendment. I am sure that members will recall when my former colleague Douglas Ross introduced the Right to Recovery (Scotland) Bill, which was supported by many working in the drug and alcohol sector. However, some leading organisations that were heavily dependent on Scottish Government funding came out and opposed the bill.
Mr Fraser, you may wish to wind up and to move your amendment. Thank you.
There was a suspicion that that was because those organisations did not want to bite the hand that feeds them.
There are many more points that I would make, Presiding Officer, but my time is up.
I move amendment S7M-00356.4, to leave out from “a Third Sector Partnership” to end and insert:
“Scotland’s third sector requires sustainable, long-term funding settlements, including greater use of multi-year funding arrangements, to provide the certainty needed to plan services, retain staff and support communities, and calls on the Scottish Government to undertake a review of organisations registered as charities that are substantially dependent on public funding and whose primary activities include lobbying or campaigning, to ensure transparency, accountability and public confidence in the use of taxpayers’ money.”
16:16
I declare that I am a councillor for Highland Council and a volunteer for Lyme Disease UK and the Lyme Resource Centre.
It is no secret that the third sector is very close to my heart. As many members know, I have a long-term illness. When the national health service could not provide the support that I needed, it was the Lyme disease charities that picked up the pieces and signposted me to the help that I needed to get me to where I am today, in this chamber. Sadly, many of those charities no longer exist. I tell this story because the third sector is not some abstract line in a budget. It is about people. It is about the volunteers who pick up the phone when no one else will. It is about the organisations that catch people who have slipped through the net. The third sector employs around 5 per cent of Scotland’s entire workforce. It is an essential part of how our country is run and it is about time that we treated it as such.
That point about employment is important. As I said, the third sector employs around 5 per cent of Scotland’s workforce, but it goes much deeper than that. The third sector is far more likely to employ those who find it difficult to get into work in the first place. Recent estimates are that 27 per cent of those who are employed in the third sector are disabled, compared with just 21 per cent in the public sector, and even less in private companies.
With a turnover of almost £10 billion, the third sector contributes massively to the Scottish economy. To explore one aspect of how the third sector impacts my local area, the Highlands and Islands region has the highest density of social enterprises in Scotland. They include organisations such as New Start Highland, which provides employability training and housing support to those in crisis, and the community-owned distillery in Dingwall, which is using green energy to bring back distilling to the area for the first time in more than 100 years.
In fact, there are more than 1,200 social enterprises in the Highlands and Islands alone, supporting more than 7,000 jobs and generating hundreds of millions of pounds for the economy and the community. In a region such as mine, which suffers from depopulation and rural poverty, those figures are not to be overlooked. The reality is that the money that we invest in the third sector comes back to us and to our community many times over, so we should not be afraid of throwing the full weight of the Scottish Government behind those organisations.
There is nothing in the Government’s motion with which we disagree, which is why the Liberal Democrat amendment seeks to add to the motion by calling for proper long-term multiyear funding that lasts for more than two years and a grant system that provides smaller charities with equal access to Government cash. Importantly, charities need the right and the confidence to be able to criticise the Government publicly without worrying about losing funding or facing repercussions.
Without all that, we simply cannot provide the security and the certainty that those charities need. A quarter of charity staff are on fixed-term contracts, and many have no idea whether they will have a job in the next 12 months. Surely we can do better than that. Yes, the fairer funding scheme is a great step forward, but it falls short of what the sector is asking for. Third sector organisations need a funding model that provides them with true sustainability, proper flexibility and more autonomy in what they can do with their money.
That is why I have lodged the amendment, and I thank the Government and other parties for their support.
I move S7M-00356.3, to insert at end:
“; understands that the third sector employs over 130,000 paid staff in Scotland, providing employment opportunities for those who find it harder to gain work, including disabled people, and often offering flexible working conditions, which has resulted in women making up 64% of the workforce; notes that Scotland's charitable and voluntary sector contributes significantly to the delivery of government policy objectives, yet relies heavily on public donations and fundraising; believes that the sustainability of many charities depends on multi-year funding and appropriate government support; considers that any diversification of funding should assist smaller charities that can find it difficult to participate in public funding rounds, and believes that any charity in receipt of public funding must retain the absolute licence to criticise, as well as to shape, public policy and the actions of government.”
We move to the open debate.
16:20
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a serving councillor on Aberdeenshire Council and chair of the charity Kincardine and Mearns Youth Clubs.
I welcome the debate on improving and strengthening the Scottish Government’s relationship with third sector partners; I suggest that it is long overdue, and that some of our local authorities could perhaps be encouraged to follow the approach. I also welcome the supportive tone of the cabinet secretary’s statement.
Increasingly, public services are reliant on the third sector to deliver the services that the public sector cannot deliver as a result of budget and capacity constraints. Those in the third sector, whether they be national organisations or local initiatives, Scottish charitable incorporated organisations or social enterprises, are delivering services that are vital to the wellbeing of our local communities. Some will be managing to employ staff, but many also rely on the good will of volunteers, and some are run solely by volunteers.
Those organisations, no matter what their focus is, all have one thing in common: to make a tangible, positive difference in the lives of the communities they serve so that folk can live healthier and happier lives. An example is Montrose Community Trust at Links Park stadium in my constituency of Angus North and Mearns, which I had the pleasure of visiting during the recent election campaign. Its services range from football coaching for youngsters and walking football for those who are less able, to Montrose connections, its dementia service, and the “breakfast in a box” free breakfast club, alongside household budget advice, an international speaking club for those for whom English is a second language and the trust’s latest initiative, the midlife matters programme for women who are experiencing menopause.
Significantly, it is ambitious to do far more, with its Gable End project to provide the dedicated dementia centre that Montrose and the surrounding area deserves. The impact that the trust has locally cannot be overestimated. It employs 16 people, who, along with 112 volunteers, deliver 32 educational, health and sporting programmes that serve more than 6,000 participants annually, and it has invested almost £850,000 locally since 2012. That is a record of which to be proud—it is an organisation to be encouraged and championed, and it is just one of many.
We need to be supporting such organisations with multiyear funding so that they can plan ahead and have stability for both the programmes that they currently deliver, and that they aspire to deliver, in their mission to help people to live happier, healthier lives, built on inclusion, connection and purpose.
Will the member give way?
Yes, I will give way.
I thank Dawn Black—[Inaudible.]
Is the microphone not working, Mr Kerr? Maybe you have not got your card in, or it might not be in properly. If there is a problem, perhaps you could move to another microphone—
The member can use mine.
Is my microphone on now?
It is, yes.
Okay. Right—we got there. Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests—until March, I was chair of the Borders Citizens Advice Consortium and chair of Peebles and District Citizens Advice Bureau, and I have 14 years of experience in citizens advice.
Dawn Black makes an important point about multiyear funding: that it is not just on the Scottish Government; it is for other funding bodies to do the same. As chair of the consortium, I negotiated a five-year contract with Scottish Borders Council: three plus two. Will the member join me in encouraging local government as well as central Government to use multiyear contracts?
I absolutely agree with that—no matter where the funding is coming from, whether it is local authorities or the National Lottery Community Fund, we need to look towards the sustainability of our third sector so that it can plan ahead.
We need to ensure that the Scottish Government is providing funding that is more easily accessed for both revenue and capital projects, with less restrictive criteria and longer spending periods. Scotland-wide, organisations need appropriate spaces to deliver their services, as, increasingly, public spaces are unavailable, unsuitable or restrictive and not fit for purpose. Rejuvenation and renovation building projects to house third sector initiatives should also be supported, because it is known that a pound that is in the hands of the third sector can go much further than if it is used by the local authority or the Government. Let us make the most of that and trust those organisations to deliver—of course with appropriate safeguards and monitoring in place.
Currently, far too many obstacles are put in the way of the third sector, especially smaller charities that are run by volunteers, such as my youth club organisation. As has already been mentioned, there are overly onerous funding applications and processes, and community asset transfers are being stalled or rejected by local authorities, which totally goes against the spirit of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Let us sweep those obstacles away.
Rightly or wrongly, in a quirk of human psychology, something that is given is often not as valued as something that has been worked for; it tends to be taken for granted. When communities, organisations and volunteers come together to provide facilities and services, they are more highly valued and respected by those using them, because they take ownership and have a sense of purpose and pride in them. Let us help to make that happen for our third sector organisations by working with them in partnership because, if they build it, people will come.
16:27
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am chair of Moving On Inverclyde and I am also an ambassador for Ocean Youth Trust Scotland.
Long before my election to the Parliament, I had a firm belief that the state cannot fix everything. Sometimes, the state is the bearer of the problems in the first instance, so it is crucial that we have a strong third sector in our communities. The third sector can be more flexible and act more quickly in dealing with events, which often makes it more efficient. It can also take a more person-centred approach, in contrast with some public sector services, where impact is measured by how many people can be seen. Safe Harbour Inverclyde is a prime example of that person-centred approach.
Having both public and third sector organisations working together in our communities is essential. I have previously spoken in the Parliament of my involvement with Moving On Inverclyde. Over the past decade, the organisation has changed immeasurably. It is now engaging with many more people locally, has a stronger reputation locally, will be expanding into new premises in Port Glasgow and has a partnership agreement with Your Voice, which is another third sector organisation, to deliver a particular project for the Inverclyde alcohol and drug recovery service. Flexibility and improved outcomes for people who need those services are important, irrespective of who delivers them.
The Covid-19 pandemic brought trauma and pain for many people. It also resulted in some remarkable activity in all our communities. The public sector pivoted practically overnight in many cases; the number of people volunteering was remarkable, and the third sector pulled together like nothing I have seen before. Fundamentally, the partnership between the public and third sectors was imperative. Neither could have supported my community alone. I have given just a couple of local examples of why the third sector is absolutely crucial to the nation.
On a national scale, I welcome the SNP Government’s delivery of multiyear funding and its commitment to develop an agreement with the third sector to strengthen its voice and improve lives. This third sector partnership, as the cabinet secretary touched on, will set out how the Scottish Government and the third sector can work together to enhance services. That includes protecting the sector’s future and independence with fairer funding, focusing on shared goals to improve outcomes for people and communities, and providing greater opportunity to contribute to policy and service design.
I do not want to let that passage in Stuart McMillan’s speech pass without offering a correction, which is that I am not sure that the cabinet secretary made a full-on commitment to multiyear funding. She is approaching the subject very gingerly—some people might say too slowly. I do not think that there was a wholesale commitment to multiyear funding—at least, I did not hear that—but perhaps the cabinet secretary will contradict me.
Mr Kerr is accustomed to challenging members, and rightly so. I thought that I heard from the cabinet secretary and also earlier in the discussion that—
Will the member take an intervention?
Sure.
This is a rather strange way of addressing Stephen Kerr’s points, but I am grateful to Stuart McMillan for giving me the opportunity to say that we have already progressed fairer funding. That is why 60 per cent of grants in my portfolio are now in fairer funding, and there is a commitment to continue that progress towards fairer funding right across the Government. I hope that that helps Stuart McMillan and Mr Kerr.
Sadly, Mr Kerr is shaking his head in disagreement—not for the first time in the Parliament, as we all know.
The pilot is the first step in mainstreaming multiyear funding agreements more widely across the third sector, which will give organisations the ability to plan and make the most of their resources. I touched on Moving On Inverclyde.
The Green amendment refers to the annual £75 million that charities need to pay for their employer national insurance contribution, which is affecting organisations across the country. That is £75 million that is being spent on something that could be utilised on the front line. The decisions that will be taken to manage that extra burden will have a wider knock-on effect for communities. British Heart Foundation has announced that it will close about 150 shops across the UK and Cancer Research UK is also planning to close about 190 of its high street shops by April 2027. The policy, which was introduced by Labour at Westminster, is highly destructive. It is destroying jobs and making the trading environment impossible for many good local organisations.
The Conservative amendment is somewhat confusing and it would add another bureaucratic nightmare to manage. Third sector organisations obtain funding from a wide variety of sources on an annual basis; they do not get money from only the Government. In one year, an organisation might fall into whatever criteria the Conservatives are arguing for in their amendment, but, in the next year, it might fall out of that criteria because of where its funding comes from. That means that whether organisations should report could potentially fluctuate on an annual basis.
The Conservative amendment is quite ridiculous; its proposals would add costs and make things even more bureaucratic for organisations. I find it strange that the Conservatives are arguing for more red tape rather than trying to reduce some of the red tape, which would allow organisations to deliver in our communities.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, Mr Kerr, but I am just about to finish—unless the Presiding Officer will let me take the time back. I see that she will not.
Fundamentally, without the third sector, our communities would look very different, and our constituents are much the richer for its existence in our communities.
16:33
Before I turn to the substance of the debate, I want to take a moment to say how proud I am to once again represent the wonderful people of East Kilbride in the Scottish Parliament. It is perhaps fitting that one of my first speeches of the new session is on the subject of Scotland’s partnership with the third sector, because East Kilbride is home to countless organisations, volunteers and community groups whose dedication strengthens our town every single day.
Scotland’s third sector is essential to the wellbeing of our communities. There are great charities that work at the national level to deliver services and tackle poverty and inequality in alignment with Scottish Government priorities. Solutions are more effective when they are designed with communities rather than for them, and I want to mention just a couple of the many fantastic local organisations that we have in East Kilbride.
Loaves and Fishes was set up more than 30 years ago and initially offered a street meals service. The charity, which is led by Lesley Davidson, has since evolved and now provides more than 250 food parcels a week, including fresh and frozen produce. It also runs a community cafe with computer facilities in Greenhills. In addition, people can use its clothes and dishes section, where they can access clothes and household goods without paying money for them.
Citizens Advice Scotland is another organisation that is working hard to support local people. Last year, East Kilbride Citizens Advice Bureau assisted more than 2,500 people in obtaining around £800,000.
Healthy and Active East Kilbride is dedicated to enhancing the lives of local people. It runs the shopmobility scheme in the town centre and its meeting place cafe provides a nice space for people to socialise and enjoy food and drink.
Using an electric minibus funded by the Scottish Government, Healthy and Active also offers community transport. Just like Loaves and Fishes, the charity works holistically, by providing classes and drop-in sessions to support people in East Kilbride.
Third sector organisations work on the ground every day and possess a wealth of expertise. They can identify barriers before they become apparent elsewhere. However, sometimes, there is a lack of innovation, due to the short-term nature of available funding.
In the previous session of Parliament, the Social Justice and Social Security Committee engaged widely with the third sector, including on the funding arrangements that such organisations require if they are to carry out their vital roles as best as possible. I remember one person mentioning that, particularly during the Covid lockdown period, committee members should watch our language. They said that, rather than calling that body of organisations the “third sector”, we should call it the “essential sector”.
I point to my entry in the register of members’ interests, in that I am an NHS nurse.
The member said that the third sector is essential. Does she agree that it plays a dovetailing role and saves money in the long term, and so investment in it is crucial?
I whole-heartedly agree. It is all about prevention.
One big ask from the committee’s engagement was for multiyear funding, and I am delighted with the SNP Government’s commitments on that. As has been mentioned, a fairer funding pilot is already under way. That has given multiyear funding certainty to a number of charities and is the first step in mainstreaming multiyear funding agreements more widely across the third sector.
However, as happens in many cases, the positive steps that are being taken in Scotland are being stymied by Westminster. The rises in national insurance that Labour introduced, which a few other members have mentioned, are estimated to cost charities here £75 million a year. Like SNP MSPs, Labour MSPs should demand that the UK Labour Government fully compensate the third sector over that highly destructive policy.
In addition to aiming for financial security for the third sector, the Scottish Government will develop an agreement with it. The third sector partnership, which is backed by SCVO, will strengthen the third sector’s voice, secure its future and, ultimately, improve people’s lives.
Having worked in several charities before I was elected, I have seen the benefits that third sector organisations bring both to Scotland and to my home town of East Kilbride. I commend the essential role that the third sector plays in supporting people and communities. The UK Labour Government must compensate the sector for its damaging national insurance hikes. I want these organisations to get the financial security of mainstream multiyear funding so that they can continue to evolve, support people and tackle inequalities. I fully support the Scottish Government’s plans to strengthen our third sector.
16:39
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I declare that I am a councillor on East Renfrewshire Council.
The third sector is the glue that holds our communities together. That is certainly true in my constituency of Glasgow Anniesland. Across that constituency, local organisations provide support where and when it is needed most, whether it be by tackling food insecurity, helping young people to access opportunities, promoting community wellbeing or providing advice and advocacy services. Those organisations are deeply rooted in our communities. They understand local needs because they are part of those communities, and they are often both the first to respond when challenges come along and the last to walk away.
That is why I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to developing a new third sector partnership agreement that is co-designed with the sector itself. True success for any partnership depends on genuine collaboration, and it is right that the organisations that deliver so much for our communities have a central role in shaping the framework that will govern that relationship.
I am particularly encouraged by the commitment to draw upon the key principles that are outlined in the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations 2026 manifesto. The principles that SCVO sets out reflect many of the issues that organisations have consistently raised with me. They recognise the need to protect the future and independence of the sector through further funding arrangements, to focus on shared goals and outcomes for people and communities rather than on the burdensome process and short-term targets, and to recognise that third sector organisations must have meaningful opportunities to contribute to policy development and service design from the outset, rather than being consulted only after decisions have already been made.
Unlike some of the debates that we have had so far in this session, this one represents a breath of fresh air. I hope that it shows us what we can achieve if we work together.
The amendment in the name of Morven-May MacCallum rightly highlights a point that is sometimes overlooked when we discuss the third sector: that it is not only a provider of services but a major employer. More than 130,000 people work in Scotland’s third sector. Many of the organisations within it provide opportunities for people who might face barriers to employment, including disabled people, carers, those returning to work after periods of illness, and people with caring responsibilities, and such organisations often lead the way in adopting flexible working practices. As Ms MacCallum’s amendment notes, women make up around 64 per cent of the third sector workforce. That reflects both the opportunities that the sector provides and the important role that it plays in creating accessible and inclusive workplaces.
A thread clearly runs through a number of the amendments that are before us. As is reflected in the amendments lodged by Morven-May MacCallum, Holly Bruce, Carol Mochan and Julie MacDougall, there is a growing consensus across the chamber, and within the sector, on the need for multiyear, simplified and flexible funding arrangements. For far too long, many organisations have been forced to operate in a cycle of short-term funding settlements that create uncertainty for staff, volunteers and service users alike. Organisations spend valuable time applying for funding, reapplying for it, and planning for funding cliff edges, when that time could be far better spent on delivering services and supporting communities.
The sector has welcomed the move towards the provision of further funding, but clearly there is more work to do. Where multiyear funding is possible, it gives organisations the certainty that is needed to retain skilled staff, plan strategically and focus on outcomes. Simplified funding processes can reduce administrative burdens, particularly for smaller community organisations, which often lack the resources to navigate complex application systems. I hope that, as we move forward, the third sector partnership agreement will provide a meaningful opportunity to build on that welcome consensus.
I would also welcome hearing further details of who will be involved in the co-design process. How will the Government ensure that the voices of smaller grass-roots organisations are heard alongside those of larger national bodies? How will organisations that represent marginalised communities be included? Most importantly for constituencies such as Glasgow Anniesland, how will local organisations be able to feed directly into the design and development of the agreement?
Scotland’s third sector has demonstrated extraordinary resilience in the face of unprecedented challenges. It deserves a relationship with Government that reflects the sector’s importance, respects its independence and supports its sustainability.
16:45
I thank the cabinet secretary for bringing this crucial debate to the chamber. Communities across Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse are incredibly well served by the work of the third sector. I know that because I have seen it at first hand as part of my work as the late Christina McKelvie MSP’s community engagement officer and again more recently during this year’s election campaign.
From the very beginning of my career, I have had the privilege of seeing some of those organisations grow. They include the fantastic Supporting Our Community network in Hillhouse, which is commonly known as SOC. It was founded by volunteers from Hillhouse, Burnbank and Blantyre, including Mark and Donna Rouse, who have been a driving force in providing support for the community after the tragic death of their 16-year-old daughter Darian. That tragedy drove Mark and Donna to expand the original aim of SOC far beyond that of expanding access to mental health care, with the result that it has become the award-winning organisation that it is today. It now offers a huge number of programmes, classes, courses and training events. Through their actions and the services that they provide, Mark and Donna have touched the lives of countless people in their community—people who might otherwise have fallen through the cracks
We all know that many people like Mark and Donna do such work day in, day out in communities across our country. In most cases, it would be entirely unsustainable in the long run for the public sector to provide those services directly, which is a fact that I firmly believe is not appreciated nearly enough across all spheres of our political life, and one that is always at the forefront of my mind when considering how public money is best spent.
That stark and inescapable reality is not one that we in this place should fear. As long as we have the courage and humility to work in partnership with the wider society that we strive to serve, we can deliver affordable public services that truly meet the needs of the citizens of our nation. At the end of the day, who knows better what the needs of our citizens and communities are than the people who live in those communities? Our job should be to empower our communities to deliver what they know is needed locally and to use what they have established as a base to build on while including them in the design and delivery of the services that they use.
Empowering individuals and communities is one of the key principles arising from the report of the Christie commission on the future delivery of public services—a key document that informs the Parliament’s work on public service reform. It is worth reminding ourselves of its other principles, to guide us in our decision making. They include: integrating service provision by working
“much more closely in partnership”
to improve outcomes; prioritising spending on services that prevent negative outcomes from occurring in the first place, to tackle problems at source; and, crucially, increasing efficiency in the delivery of our public services by
“reducing duplication and sharing services wherever possible.”
I firmly believe that, if we keep those principles at the forefront of our minds throughout this session of Parliament, we will be able to deliver public services that our communities can be proud of.
On Christie’s final principle—that of increasing efficiency by reducing duplication and sharing services—I encourage members across the chamber to engage with organisations that are delivering in their local areas and to ask them for their views. I have had some fantastic conversations of that sort. Last month, I spoke to Nancy and Terry of the Larkhall community plan group, who are involved in a host of local initiatives in the town, from growing to planning and a host of other services. In the process, they have highlighted a particularly obvious example of duplication that is getting in the way of empowering our local communities and which offers a great opportunity to help to share services locally. I will write to the cabinet secretary to raise that example with her, with the aim of moving forward public service reform at a local level, too.
I have also had the pleasure of re-engaging with the Larkhall and District Volunteer Group, which is run by Sandra McCrory and which does fantastic work, particularly with older residents, to tackle social isolation and loneliness—issues that are often not given the significance that they deserve. The group’s free call line offers regular friendly phone calls for lonely or vulnerable people who live in the Lanarkshire area, with volunteers making daily calls from Monday to Friday, in either mornings or afternoons, for a friendly chat and to check that members are safe and well. The service provides reassurance and social contact for those who live alone and feel isolated. That is another service that the public sector would find it incredibly difficult to deliver on its own.
I end by putting one of our fantastic community organisations in the third sector back at the centre of the debate. I extend an invite to the newly appointed minister, Simita Kumar, to come along and see the work of the Larkhall and District Volunteer Group at first hand.
I again thank the cabinet secretary for bringing the debate to the chamber.
We move to closing speeches.
16:49
In closing the debate for the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I declare an interest: I am a councillor on Aberdeenshire Council and I sit on the board of trustees of the Barn arts centre and of La petite French School d’Aberdeen.
My team and I have contributed to and helped in the journey of all the third sector groups that we are part of. In the north-east of Scotland, we are buzzing with such people, who are helping, willing, caring and working for free or begging for pennies to support people in their daily lives. Over the past 20 years, many of the vital public sector jobs that we spoke about only last week have migrated to the third sector—they are in community-led, community-delivered, specialised services that have been co-developed with the service users themselves. We might think that that is amazing, but those organisations face insecure funding. They rely on the good will and expertise of volunteer trustees and have to support thousands of people to negotiate their way through complex public services, especially in our justice system. Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, Citizens Advice Scotland and the Wise Group are just a few of the many organisations that help people in their daily lives.
Every day, those third sector organisations face real pressures. They do a fantastic job, but I know from my experience as a beneficiary, a trustee and a councillor, and my role here in the Parliament, that they deserve more support than they are given. As colleagues across the chamber have said, the third sector is crying out for multiyear funding. Time and money are wasted creating systems that rely on annual funding cycles and the financial insecurity that that creates. As highlighted by my dear neighbour as a councillor, Dawn Black, third sector organisations need to be involved in design and decision making as equal partners.
As a Liberal Democrat, I am driven by our commitment to localism and to decentralising decision making right down to the hearts of communities. A commitment to co-design cannot be for show only; we need to listen to the third sector, even if what it tells us feels uncomfortable. That is why I call on members to support the amendment that was lodged by my colleague Morven-May MacCallum, which calls for the third sector to be given a licence to criticise. Those who are best placed to feed back, guide, contribute to and strengthen the partnership between the Scottish Government and the third sector should never fear—in fact, they should be encouraged to speak out in a way that will challenge the status quo.
I also commend colleagues for highlighting the vital role that the third sector plays as an employer. Public and private employers could learn from the third sector when it comes to creating flexible and inclusive roles for carers and people with disabilities.
Too often, public bodies of all sizes overlook the voluntary sector or do not treat them equally when planning or delivering services or making decisions on delivery. If we are to truly strengthen our partnership, the third sector needs to be embraced as an equal partner across the board. A formal commitment that is built into the structure across all levels of government and public bodies will ensure that the warm words that we often say are actually put into action.
I call Stephen Kerr. You have up to five minutes, Mr Kerr.
16:53
I begin by recognising the outstanding contribution that is made by genuine charities and voluntary organisations right across Scotland—I see it every week, and I see it everywhere in Mid Scotland and Fife. They support vulnerable families, help people through crisis, tackle loneliness and strengthen our communities. Scotland would undoubtedly be poorer without them.
However, what concerns me today is the increasingly opaque relationship between the Scottish Government and parts of the third sector. For years, my office has tried to follow the money. We have submitted parliamentary questions, pursued freedom of information requests and trawled through annual reports. It should not be that difficult to establish where taxpayers’ money is going, yet there is no single source of information. There is no straightforward way for parliamentarians, journalists or taxpayers to understand who receives public funds, how much they receive and what they spend it on.
Following public money should not require a treasure hunt, but my concern goes beyond transparency. I have repeatedly raised concerns about organisations whose principal activity appears increasingly to be political activism rather than charitable work—organisations that campaign, lobby and try to shape public policy, including organisations that increasingly seek to influence what children are taught in our schools.
Earlier this year, Daniel Sanderson, the Scottish political editor of The Times and The Sunday Times, performed what I believe was a significant public service. His investigations exposed the extent to which public money is being used to sustain organisations that are presented as independent voices that support Government policy. Perhaps the most revealing contribution of all was from Alex Neil, a former SNP cabinet secretary—a man who sat around the Cabinet table. He spoke about ministers approaching what he described as “friendly organisations” to support “controversial” policies. Let us think about that. A former SNP cabinet secretary described a system in which the Government funds organisations that support Government policy, with that support presented as evidence of independent backing. That claim is not from an Opposition member, although I agree with it; it is a warning from somebody who was there.
If members think that this is merely a theoretical issue, I can give many examples, but let me give only a couple. Over many years, LGBT Youth Scotland has received substantial sums of public money while it has become increasingly embedded in Scotland’s education system through educational resources, training programmes and discussions around gender identity and sexuality, including in primary schools. The Scottish Drugs Forum, which receives substantial grants from Scottish Government funds, has been integrated in the policy-making process by lobbying for drug consumption rooms and against the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill. Let us call it out for what it is.
I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for taking an intervention, but I am concerned by his argument. There are organisations that support the Government’s purpose on, for example, tackling child poverty and climate action, as it should be, but there are other organisations that support Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat policies. That is part of the democratic system. Organisations choose which policies they support, which party best represents them and which changes they think that we should make. Surely it is a good thing that organisations speak out; I assure Stephen Kerr that they regularly speak out both for and against the Government.
I am quoting from Dan Sanderson’s article that was published in The Sunday Times in March. I am illustrating his investigative journalism through specific examples that were quoted in the article, including the words of Alex Neil. The Government undertakes a deliberately cynical exercise to attract organisations that will lobby in support of Government policy.
Just so that members are clear, as Mr Kerr will be aware, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator has a statutory role. Many of the organisations that he has referenced have not, to my knowledge, expressed concern about OSCR. Therefore, is he directly attacking the work of OSCR, which is independent of us?
I thank David Linden for his intervention, because he has highlighted the wording of our amendment. To be frank, yes, I am expressing concern about the genuineness of some organisations based in Scotland that call themselves charities and are registered with OSCR, and I believe that the regulator should take a closer look at them.
Will Mr Kerr take another intervention on that point?
I must press on—I apologise, but I am happy to talk to David Linden about these issues at any time.
I was talking about OSCR.
I am talking about organisations that are—
Members must not make interventions unless the member who has the floor has indicated their agreement to taking an intervention.
I am grateful for that, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I am also grateful to David Linden for highlighting an issue that I am more than happy to discuss outside the very limited time that I have for this speech. There are other points that I wish to make.
The organisations that I have been describing are not politically neutral. They have clear ideological positions, they campaign for those positions, they lobby for those positions, and they seek to influence public opinion and public policy in pursuit of those positions. They have every right to do so; what I question is why taxpayers are funding them. Some of those organisations are funded by public funds to the tune of 80-plus per cent of their entire funding. That should cause us concern.
Will the member take an intervention?
When a Government funds organisations to lobby the Government and then points to them as neutral experts in support of their policy, to shut down dissent, surely that cannot be described as anything other than a corruption of our democratic process.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am going to have to press on, as I am being encouraged to do so.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I would love to have longer to speak. Perhaps members can organise it between themselves so that we have more time to speak.
The public are not fools. They are entitled to know who is funding whom. They are entitled to know who is influencing whom. They are entitled to know whether supposedly independent voices are, in fact, substantially dependent upon Government support and funding. Too often, the taxpayer is paying for both sides of the argument: they fund the Government and they fund the organisations that tell us how wonderful the SNP Government is. The SNP has spent years building an echo chamber and then presenting the echo as independent evidence. That is not healthy, it is not transparent and it undermines public trust.
The solution—[Interruption.] I have a solution. [Interruption.] Yes, I come bearing solutions. The solution is straightforward. Let us start with this. Whenever an organisation appears before a parliamentary committee, it should be required to declare how much funding it has received from the Scottish Government over the previous five years and what proportion of its total income that funding represents. That is not asking too much.
The member must start to wind up.
The declaration of interests is part of the normal processes of parliamentary committees and, indeed, parliamentary debate in this chamber. The Parliament should know, the public should know and taxpayers should know.
The member must wind up.
That is not an attack on charities; it is a defence of transparency and accountability, and it is long overdue.
The member had five minutes and has spoken for eight and a half minutes. I appreciate that he took interventions, but he must stick to time.
17:02
I was going to start by saying that I felt that there was overwhelming cross-party respect and support for Scotland’s third sector, but I now feel that that might not be true of all parts of our chamber. However, it feels like there is strong recognition from most of us that our third sector is not only integral to community health and wellbeing and harm prevention but a valued source of expertise and knowledge for most of us, and a vital vehicle for community power.
It has been great to hear about meaningful local initiatives such as walking football and the breakfast boxes in the north-east that Dawn Black mentioned, and about the compassionate staff behind the work of health charities such as Lyme Disease UK, which Morven-May MacCallum mentioned.
It is also clear from the debate how precarious things are for the third sector right now, with organisations facing delays to funding decisions and the long-term impacts of underfunding, cuts and the threats of cuts. Far too many organisations are facing the possibility of job losses and closures. We have heard about the funding crisis that Murray’s Initiative in Glasgow is facing. It is not alone in this precarity, as 64 per cent of members of the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland reported financial insecurity at the end of last year, up from 49 per cent in March 2024. The Dumfries and Galloway Citizens Advice Service had its core funding cut by 20 per cent in the most recent council budget, despite the fact that it put £9.8 million back into clients’ pockets and into the local economy—as Stuart McMillan mentioned earlier.
The Scottish Huntington’s Association, which provides a nationwide specialist service for families impacted by Huntington’s disease, told me that statutory funding for the service, where it is provided, is typically allocated on a 12-month basis via a complex jigsaw of local funders with different reporting requirements, who often cannot confirm funding until the eve of the new financial year. That causes anxiety and uncertainty for front-line staff and, more importantly, for the extremely vulnerable people living with the condition.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to fairer funding, a third sector agreement and responding to the needs of the sector. As we know and have known for a really long time, we urgently need to move away from the traditional forms of funding and towards easily accessible, multiyear, flexible funding as the default. Such fairer, longer-term models of funding should enable organisations to cover their core costs, which are rising, retain their autonomy and values, set their own priorities and work on their own terms, and be flexible and responsive to the changing needs of their communities, which they know best. We should be looking to get organisations off the hamster wheel of needlessly competitive and onerous funding applications and to move away from the constraints of project-by-project cycles.
We must recognise that today’s debate is not just about central Government funding schemes for the third sector; it is about properly funding our local government. Edinburgh Green councillor Alys Mumford has helped to secure the continuation of funding for some local organisations who had their funding cut without warning, establishing a new funding stream for those specifically impacted by integration joint board cuts in Edinburgh. However, our councillors and local organisations should not be put in such a position in the first place. We need to move towards stable, multiyear funding in the local government settlement and rebuild the trust that we are losing locally.
Although I welcome the support across the parties in the chamber for the importance of multiyear funding, it is extremely telling that we have a Labour Party that is willing to champion multiyear funding for the third sector while denying the same long-term financial sustainability for this very Parliament. We will support the Labour amendment, but, in exchange, Labour members must commit to working with us and their Westminster colleagues to find a solution that allows our Parliament to meaningfully budget in a multiyear way.
An area that has not been covered in much detail this afternoon—although Carol Mochan mentioned the importance of smaller front-line organisations—is the really important role of small grass-roots organisations in our having a thriving third sector in Scotland, and how we ensure that our funding models are able to support organisations that perhaps do not have the governance structures, banking set-up or history of grant management that are required for certain pots of funding. The smaller grass-roots organisations are often those that face the most acute safety and security issues, as they face rising racism and transphobia in an increasingly hostile environment. Many of our community-led organisations are staffed by volunteers and workers who themselves are experiencing multiple overlapping oppressions, trauma and burnout while supporting others. What can we do to better support those organisations with things such as emergency hardship funds and quick access to cash, to allow groups to cover essential costs such as food, transport, security equipment and childcare? Can we support social spaces where groups can organise, create and recuperate, eat together and plan together—spaces run by and for grass-roots groups? Can we properly invest in the broader infrastructure that can support smaller groups to thrive?
I am really pleased to see a commitment in the Scottish Government’s motion to the principle of co-design, but I would like a commitment to open government principles and a human-rights approach to participation as part of that.
Fundamentally, today’s debate is a question not just of partnership but of power. It is about a willingness on the part of Government to treat the third sector as an equal partner; to meaningfully involve a diverse range of third sector and community voices in decision making and properly resource those conversations; to fund courageously, trust generously and have honest and transparent conversations about funding; to share and redistribute power through processes that we use; and to recognise that every decision has the potential to shape what grows, what survives and what and who remains marginal.
17:08
The register of members’ interests will show that, until 8 May, I was employed as a director of Scottish Autism, which is a third sector organisation. It is precisely because of that background that I have been heartened to see the cabinet secretary lodge the motion, resulting in the consideration of the needs of the sector so early in this parliamentary session.
Last week, in the debate on public service reform, I argued that public service reform and the new deal with the third sector need to be considered in the round. I repeat that sentiment having heard today’s speeches; that was certainly evident from last week’s debate.
I am grateful to Joe Long for giving way, particularly when he has just got started. The public service reform aspect is very important, because it is about delivering better public services. For example, preventing homelessness is better for the Government and it is better for the individual involved. It is not about cuts; it is about better public services for everyone, including the people we are here to serve.
Absolutely: I fully recognise and agree with that.
There certainly seems to be cross-party consensus about the need for multiyear funding. We have repeatedly heard that from across the chamber today. I know from my own experience that year-on-year funding agreements can cause significant financial risk for organisations, some of which, as has been said, are very small and have limited reserves to draw on. Colm Merrick mentioned a cliff edge and Kate Nevens described situations that are very real. I know of instances of charities waiting several months into the financial year to find out whether they would be funded from that April. As Murdo Fraser said, that is a real circumstance, so I am pleased to see it being addressed and discussed in the open today.
In that context, I will say a word about third sector boards. We have not talked much about boards today, but trustees are themselves third sector volunteers and often take on significant responsibilities for governance and finance. The precarious funding situation means that they are often weighing fiduciary responsibilities against loyalty and concern for their staff, who they want to employ and do not want to see go while they are waiting for funding decisions. They have a concern for their workforce who, as we have heard from several members, including Holly Bruce, are often in quite precarious positions. When we talk about engaging the sector, volunteer boards must be particularly thought about.
On the subject of the precarity of employment, we are, at the moment, seeing a compounding of the inequalities in pay and conditions between the public and third sectors. We can take social care as an example. Last October, a report from the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland showed that the difference between the salary of a band 3 NHS worker and that of a social care worker in a third sector organisation could be as much as 14 per cent, although their jobs require a similar level of skill and responsibility. That is not a point about the politics of envy because those in the NHS absolutely deserve the pay, recognition and rewards that they get—and more—but there is a fundamental inequality at the moment. Without even taking into account things such as unsocial hours payments or defined benefit pensions, third sector social care providers are not only facing competition for employees from the retail or hospitality sectors but risk losing staff to local government services and to the NHS when their own contracts with local government or Government mean that offering similar pay and conditions is just not possible. That sort of inequality must be looked at and understood.
Joe Long has made a number of important points. As someone who has been on many boards, I know the challenge of finding a treasurer in particular.
There is one aspect of funding that has not come up much in today’s debate. We have spoken about year-on-year funding but there is also core funding. So much of the funding that is allocated is project based, but organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland, which supports 200,000 people a year, often struggle for core funding. Does Mr Long have any reflections on that as we try to come up with a fair funding model?
That was going to be my next point and has been well made by the member, as it was in Holly Bruce’s contribution earlier. The costs borne by the third sector do not come just from the pay of front-line staff, although we might be forgiven for thinking that when we see the contracts that come from local authorities around April. We must ensure that an ethical commissioning process sees full contract value being taken into account when contracts are uplifted during April funding rounds, because organisations must also employ managers, back-office staff and all the other people who keep the wheels moving and support the work. I thank the member for the intervention.
There has been some discussion today about the campaigning and advocacy role of third sector organisations. I welcome the Liberal Democrat amendment and the cabinet secretary’s comments about the right of third sector organisations to campaign and speak up. If charity-sector organisations and service providers find themselves increasing their campaigning and lobbying, that may be because they feel that Government has historically failed to listen to their expertise or to the lived experience of those that they support through their channels and engagement.
We should not expect funded organisations to live in a state of eternal gratitude that means that they cannot speak up for the people who are being failed. In the third sector, the duty to care for groups who are marginalised or disadvantaged and the duty to speak up for those groups are often of a piece—they come together. That is what makes the third sector what it is, and that is why it makes such a rich contribution to our society. I welcome the recognition of that in the Liberal Democrat amendment, which makes it very clear.
I imagine that there will be some relief and good cheer among my former colleagues in the third sector at the consensus and the tone of today’s debate, although that might be tempered by a bit of scepticism among professionals who have heard warm words and sympathetic noises before. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
The member alluded to the point in the Liberal Democrat amendment that the third sector must have the licence to criticise as well as to shape policy. I worked for most of my life in the Scottish third sector and, as members across the chamber have said, it is difficult for people who are under funding pressures and find themselves saying, “Can I really say this to the Government? Will it have an impact on the funding stream that is coming down the line?” I do not know what the answer to that really difficult challenge is, but it is worth recognising it.
I thank the member for his intervention and for the Liberal Democrat amendment, which recognises that.
As I said, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We have a fair funding pilot going on, but the third sector is very used to pilots and they often do not end up with initiatives being scaled up or rolled out to create real, systemic change. We need to ensure that, whatever lessons are learned from the pilot, they are implemented at speed, with structural change. We need political decisiveness to raise the third sector’s status, put organisations on a sustainable footing, and recognise and reward the highly skilled, specialist workforce. Without those changes, there are, even now, organisations that will not survive the current parliamentary session.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am wrapping up, so I will not take any more interventions.
I hope that the proposed measures will be implemented without delay. There is the political will across the chamber for that to happen, as we have heard today. The Liberal Democrats will certainly put our weight and our votes behind meaningful change if it is brought forward, and we will support the Scottish Government’s motion to that end today.
17:17
As others have mentioned, the third sector in Scotland is not just a “nice to have” but is often the backbone of care, compassion and community support. With more than 46,000 organisations employing more than 133,000 people and holding assets worth tens of billions of pounds, the third sector proves that civic society and not central Government is often best placed to meet local needs. It must be treated by Holyrood with the economic respect that it deserves, not as an afterthought.
These organisations step in every day where the state falls short, supporting cancer patients, veterans, those with neurological conditions and many others. Macmillan Cancer Support provides specialist nurses and holistic support. Erskine Veterans Charity delivers vital care to those who served our country. The Scottish Huntington’s Association offers expert help to those who are living with a devastating neurological condition, and Alzheimer’s Scotland provides essential day care and respite services. Alzheimer’s Scotland was a lifeline to my family when my father had dementia. The practical support and respite that it offered helped us to cope and allowed my father to live with dignity.
These organisations do far more than deliver services—they fill critical gaps in statutory provision. Councils and integration joint boards turn to the third sector because it is often more cost effective, agile and responsive than large public bureaucracies. It stretches public funds further through charitable fundraising, volunteers and specialist expertise. These charities bring community trust and a person-centred approach that statutory services frequently struggle to match. They prevent crises, reduce the number of hospital admissions and often deliver better outcomes for less money.
Despite warm words about partnership, however, too often, the reality on the ground is chronic underfunding and instability, as we have heard. The sector is in crisis. Some 64 per cent of third sector organisations are financially insecure, and that figure increased sharply from 49 per cent in the previous year. More than 60 per cent have faced direct cuts to core grants and many are being forced to run down their reserves just to survive in their daily operations. The crisis is manufactured, however, as the current public funding model is actively pushing Scotland’s front-line defences to the absolute brink. Running down emergency reserves to fund day-to-day services is completely unsustainable and represents financial negligence by public funders.
Macmillan Cancer Support has been forced to make significant redundancies and cut services in recent years due to funding pressures, leaving cancer patients with reduced access to the specialist support that they desperately need. As Kate Nevens pointed out, even more stark is the situation that is faced by the Scottish Huntington’s Association, which wrote to me recently to say:
“While the Scottish Government rightly talks about the crucial importance of the third sector in delivering public services, the reality on the front line can be somewhat different. While there may be talk of the third sector being equal partners, when funding challenges come all too often IJBs look to essential third sector services to bear the brunt, as if they can be removed without consequence. Glasgow City IJB, for example, recently withdrew funding for Scottish Huntington’s Association to provide a specialist Huntington’s service unilaterally and without consultation, in so doing being chastened by its own Audit department. This despite the previous Health Secretary Neil Gray saying the Scottish Huntington’s Association service keeps families ‘well in the community, prevents crisis admissions to hospital and lessens the risk of suicide.’”
I therefore ask the cabinet secretary to meet urgently with the Scottish Huntington’s Association to resolve that situation and others like it.
Treating trusted specialist third sector partners in that way does not suggest that they are equal partners that deliver essential preventative services; it treats them as second-class citizens, useful in good times and expendable when budgets tighten. The situation is unsustainable. We must prioritise efficiency, clearer accountability and value for money in public services, ensuring that resources are directed to front-line services rather than bureaucracy.
I thank Murdo Fraser, Stephen Kerr and Duncan Dunlop for sharing their concerns about political activism among some so-called charities. All third-party organisations must be politically neutral. They must not support a particular party. That is a legal position, and it is the very definition of what the third sector is.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is winding up, so she cannot take an intervention.
The proposed new third sector partnership agreement is welcome, but it must mean more than warm words. As members including Dawn Black, Collette Stevenson and Murdo Fraser have pointed out, it needs fair, sustainable and genuine multiyear funding that matches the true value and cost of the third sector’s work. On that, I believe, there is cross-party consensus. Scotland’s third sector and the vulnerable people it serves deserve better.
I remind members of the convention that there should be no interruptions or interventions during a first speech. I call Simita Kumar to make her first speech and to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government.
17:23
As this is my first contribution, I begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to the people of Edinburgh South Western for placing their trust in me to represent them. It is a profound honour and privilege. For those colleagues who are unfamiliar with the Edinburgh South Western constituency, it is defined by both its stunning natural landscape and its strong sense of community. On the approach to Edinburgh, the majestic Pentland Hills rise on the horizon, marking the beginning of the Water of Leith, which winds its way through our capital. However, not only the beauty of the landscape but the people who call it home make my constituency incredibly special. Across our communities, there is a spirit of kindness and resilience that I am proud to represent today.
I would also like to pay tribute to my predecessor, the formidable Gordon MacDonald. When I first met Gordon, I was struck by his determination and steadfastness. However, through working alongside him, I came to know the kindness, generosity and genuine care that sit behind that determined exterior. Over time, he has become not only a colleague but a friend, a mentor and a source of wise counsel. For his guidance, support and encouragement I will always be grateful.
After 15 years of service, Gordon chose to stand down at the last election and retire—although, knowing Gordon, “retirement” may not be quite the right word. He has already spoken enthusiastically about the number of charities he will be volunteering for, so it is with great pleasure that I make my first speech on strengthening the third sector, as it is something that both Gordon and I are passionate about. It is also the first debate that is in my portfolio and that of the social justice secretary.
I thank all the members who have contributed to the debate. There was a lot of consensus and genuinely good debate in this room. Of course, the debate took an unfortunate turn in some of the contributions that chose to demonise some charities. However, I will move on to cover some of the points that I found really valuable.
As an ex-councillor, I recognise some of the challenges that Julie MacDougall highlighted, so I thank her for doing that. I reassure Carol Mochan that I truly believe in what she said about grass-roots communities and organisations and I look forward to working with her in that space to see what we can do and what we can do better. Holly Bruce thanked the workforce in our charity sector, and I absolutely believe in them as well. On her point about public sector reform, I note that reform does not simply mean cuts; it means having a prevention agenda at the core of our approach.
One theme that came across quite clearly is the message that the third sector is a fundamental part of how we deliver support, tackle inequality and strengthen communities throughout our country.
In my own portfolio, the third sector’s contribution is clear and we have committed to a significant multiyear settlement for key disabled people’s organisations, recognising their central role in achieving disability equality. This represents an important first step, and we will keep the approach under review as part of our wider work with the third sector.
Multiyear funding provides the stability that is needed to plan for the longer term, invest in staff, develop services and build relationships that drive lasting change. With greater certainty, organisations can move beyond maintaining services to improving and expanding them, reaching more people and delivering better outcomes across Scotland. It also enables more meaningful co‑production, ensuring that organisations can consistently shape policy and services, embedding the principle of “nothing about us without us”. Ultimately, multiyear funding strengthens organisations’ ability to deliver a sustained long‑term impact.
Furthermore, community-level impact is being strengthened through the improving access fund, through which 33 organisations across more than 30 local authority areas have been awarded £1.5 million to improve access to essential services, support independent living and enable disabled people to participate fully in society.
Despite ongoing budget challenges, we remain firmly committed to a fairer, more inclusive Scotland and to advancing equality and tackling discrimination across a wide range of priorities. I am new to this chamber, so perhaps this is my naive optimism, but we all spoke passionately about multiyear funding and, whatever political party we represent, we all have representation at Westminster, so I genuinely ask members to appeal to their colleagues at Westminster to provide Scotland with that multiyear funding so that we can provide it to our charities.
I also want to recognise the vital role of volunteers in our society. Earlier this month, during volunteers week, I visited Maslow’s community hub in Govan—an incredible hub that offers classes, workshops and one-to-one support. I heard at first hand about its work in supporting people who face barriers to volunteering, including those from ethnic minority communities, those experiencing intersectional barriers and those with lived experience of the asylum process. I saw how volunteering fosters community cohesion and reduces social isolation while growing the volunteer base.
I thank Alex Kerr for the invitation to come to his constituency to see the fantastic work that he mentioned. If my diary allows, I would love to take him up on that offer.
The hub that I mentioned is just one of many examples across Scotland that show the wider impact of volunteering. Volunteering contributes an estimated £5.3 billion each year, but its value goes beyond that. Volunteering tackles loneliness, improves wellbeing, builds confidence and opens pathways into employment. Quite simply, volunteers are at the heart of our communities and our third sector.
However, we must be honest about the challenges ahead. We know that the current system is not sustainable and, if we are to secure the essential support and services that the third sector provides, we must take meaningful action together. It is in that context that the development of a new third sector partnership agreement represents a critical and necessary next step. The agreement will lay the foundations for a stronger and more sustainable sector. It will be co-designed with the sector, not imposed on it, and it will recognise the third sector as a true partner in shaping and delivering solutions for the people and communities of Scotland. The themes that it identifies are developing a strategic partnership of equals, supporting a strong and independent sector, improving financial sustainability and ensuring accountability at all levels. It is a real opportunity for the Scottish Government to demonstrate that we have listened and that we are committed to meaningful, lasting change.
As we take that work forward, I want to be clear about our commitment. We will work alongside the sector in genuine collaboration, listening carefully to the voices, experience and expertise across the sector in order to deliver a meaningful partnership agreement that reflects our shared ambition. We truly cannot achieve that alone, and we must formalise our relationship. I go back to what Morven-May MacCallum said about understanding the strength of our third sector—that is something that I truly believe in, and I look forward to working with the sector on that aspect.
By working collaboratively, we can ensure that the third sector partnership agreement is not just a statement of intent but a lasting agreement that supports a stable and sustainable sector and delivers real change for the people and communities of Scotland.
Thank you. That concludes the debate on strengthening Scotland’s partnership with the third sector.