Voluntary Sector and the Social Economy
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2825, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, on the voluntary sector and the social economy.
I am often intimidated when the Deputy Presiding Officer is in the chair; I am even more so after that last exchange, so I shall try to be on my best behaviour.
The challenge of the debate on the voluntary sector is that it poses a question for us all: How do we debate the voluntary sector without being cosy, precious or patronising and without focusing merely on the funding issues that face voluntary organisations? I hope that we will identify what makes the voluntary sector crucial and challenging, that we will consider how it can be nourished and sustained and that we will discuss how we can develop the broader dynamic of the social economy. The challenge is to capture the sector's essence and to develop it. We must acknowledge that it does not fit easily in any box. As I have said, that is the joy of the sector and what makes it interesting. In underpinning all our work with the voluntary sector and broader social economy organisations, I hope that we do not squeeze out of them what makes them different and gives them the goodness that we all recognise.
The Executive intends to support Mark Ballard's amendment and to oppose Linda Fabiani's amendment while acknowledging the important issues that both amendments raise.
The voluntary sector matters because it undertakes tasks that we cannot always undertake, especially locally, such as their grass-roots services that reach individuals in their communities. The sector is much more than another service-delivery vehicle for the Executive or anyone else; it provides the opportunity to test new initiatives and to develop partnerships between agencies. The sector tells us what needs to be done and what we must be more aware of.
I appreciate that challenges arise from always looking for new initiatives and innovation, but we know that central to the voluntary sector is the opportunity that it presents to test measures, to consider exciting developments and to understand better what need is. For example, the sector provides vital services to people who have become dispossessed. It could be argued that a homeless person is much more likely to accept and seek help from a voluntary sector worker than from someone who is seen as being more official. The sector challenges us to think about matters in a new way, and to tackle issues that are sometimes difficult to talk about. We all understand and recognise the role of local housing providers not just in shaping housing to meet need, but in shaping our understanding of how homelessness and other housing needs are expressed.
We want to support the sector in a way that promotes sustainability for organisations and which helps them to become better at the things that they already do so well. I think that there is some consensus on that.
My feeling is that the voluntary sector is at its best when it is built from the ground up, with a focus on a community-based desire to do things differently in order to improve life chances, services and opportunities. Sometimes those things grow and sometimes they do not, but that is not the key issue. Organisations do not need to be big to make a tangible difference to people's lives.
The voluntary sector is at its best when it moves towards and achieves self-reliance, with its own income, progressively less reliance on Government funding, efficiency of organisation and sufficient robustness to be able to offer independent views. An interesting interface can perhaps be seen in the co-operative movement, which is arguably a fitting example of what I am talking about, although not all co-operatives grew from voluntary organisations. Organisations such as local soap companies and Cafe Direct, which operates nationally, are examples of well-known and well-run organisations that make tangible differences to our society.
The best voluntary organisations are forward looking; indeed, they often drive government's vision by challenging us and by focusing debate on how we can create a better world in the future. A compelling feature of the best voluntary organisations is their dogged determination to turn things round and never to give up on the issues that they think matter. By focusing on their vision and by keeping at it whatever the odds, they try to make others understand the issues that they find so compelling. They campaign tirelessly to raise awareness.
Organisations such as Child Poverty Action Group, Barnardo's and Help the Aged are among the many groups that have a long history and which continue to go from strength to strength. Their campaigning drives them towards providing vital services and, through that delivery, they help to shape broader policy by providing an understanding of how such services ought to look across the community and across society. We need to build on that by ensuring that we encourage the best organisations to do better, and that we help those that want to take more action.
Clearly, the social economy overlaps with the voluntary sector and social enterprises make a positive contribution, as the amendment in the name of Mark Ballard identifies. Social economy organisations add value to delivery of public services and are flexible and able to innovate. The social economy is becoming more what some people might call business-like in its approach to service delivery. As we know, some organisations generate significant surpluses. Such more-than-profit organisations invest in the communities that they serve and play diverse roles in addressing regeneration and in developing their communities.
I know that the minister does not have much time to speak, but will she comment on the voluntary organisations that deliver policy, such as health care policy, on behalf of the Executive?
I may not be able to address that issue in detail, but I acknowledge that such organisations are crucial and that they perhaps epitomise the social economy and voluntary sector. I may develop some such points later, but the fundamental point is that such organisations exist not just to deliver services on behalf of the state. The organisations themselves should determine what those services should look like. A far more powerful message than simply handing over resources only for organisations to do what we want them to do is that the organisations share understanding of what needs to be done.
We need to understand the diversity of the sector. We need a clear vision of a vibrant, sustainable, strong and independent voluntary and social economy sector so that organisations can, from a position of strength in our communities, choose when to work in partnership with government and when to challenge us to do things differently. Clearly, achieving that vision presents challenges to the Executive and the voluntary sector. As we look to the future, we must ensure that we develop policies that help the sector to play to its strengths, and which build its independent voice and capacity to deliver. That is why I want to work with the sector as we develop the detail of how we will implement that vision.
Within the Executive, we are already starting to look at where and how we work with the sector, when that works best and how we can build on and develop that. From letters that I have received and from conversations that I have had, I know that voluntary organisations face a number of challenges. Some organisations are thwarted in their delivery of services because they must continually chase funding and some are drowned in paperwork from the people who provide the funding, which I will deal with in a moment. In realising our vision for the sector's future, we will consider what the big issues are, consider how we can tackle them and then take action.
We have moved forward in three main areas: securing funding and sustainability; providing the best possible frameworks and processes for the sector; and on volunteers, who are the lifeblood of the sector. On funding and sustainability, the Scottish Executive's funding of the voluntary sector is substantial. Our financial commitment to the sector now stands at more than £400 million each year. Funding is available from all parts of the Scottish Executive, its agencies and non-departmental bodies.
Our review of the social economy explicitly recognised that social economy organisations can deliver quality public services, and it recognised the barriers to growth of such organisations, which challenges the lazy and false misunderstanding of where the public sector is and where the private sector is. It is possible to understand that services that are not directly delivered by government can still be seen as a crucial part of delivering public services.
We have sought to develop a package of support measures for the social economy, in order to contribute to the further development of the sector. A key element is futurebuilders Scotland, which is investing some £18 million in the social economy sector until 2007. Already, almost £3 million has been awarded to more than 80 organisations.
The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is asking for a review of the effectiveness of futurebuilders as a way to increase the contribution of the voluntary sector and it would welcome the minister's view on that. Will she tell us her view?
It will certainly be essential to review the effectiveness of the futurebuilders initiative. The underlying commitment to building the social economy through futurebuilders is well stated. We must ensure that that programme fulfils our aspirations for the sector.
A key criterion for all applications to futurebuilders is that they must play a part in closing the opportunity gap. One Plus in Glasgow has been awarded funding to secure the long-term sustainability of its organisation through the purchase of its central Glasgow premises.
We have come a long way in understanding the opportunities that the sector has developed in meeting needs such as child care, which was once not even understood as a policy. We have a strategy for the futurebuilders fund that understands the need to give children the best start and which provides opportunities for parents, particularly women, to go to work. It also provides work and training opportunities for people who are far from the labour market. That is an underpinning of our commitment to closing the opportunity gap.
Our investments mean that organisations can begin to generate income through trade, or can build and expand on early successes. For example, FEAT Enterprises in Fife has developed a social enterprise known as Green Team. Investment from futurebuilders Scotland will enable FEAT Enterprises to develop the Green Team business considerably, providing much-needed employment and development opportunities for the individuals that it works with.
Our investment will help to build a strong and sustainable social economy that is capable of delivering excellent public services. Co-operatives have a particular contribution to make in economic and social development in a number of ways. They provide an attractive start-up option for people whose capital, experience or confidence is limited. By pooling their resources and experience, people can share responsibilities and risks that might make self-employed working unviable. Co-operatives secure prosperity for communities and, crucially, they have a democratic component that ensures greater accountability, understanding and knowledge.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I cannot take any more interventions.
I welcome the undertaking to establish a co-operative development agency, and I understand the crossover into social enterprises. It is a long-held commitment of mine and other Labour and Co-operative party members to support a sector that people have often not understood. A social economy advisory board is to be set up. Through that board, the sector will have an important opportunity to make significant input to the work of the Executive in developing the social economy and in sustaining dialogue with the diversity of that sector. There will be a challenge in developing such opportunities as the CDA develops its role.
The strategic funding review will address the points that Linda Fabiani will perhaps raise. It is important to say that the Executive, local authorities and the voluntary sector are working together to conduct a strategic funding review to address and highlight the problems. We know that the SCVO and other organisations have made surprisingly positive briefing contributions to the debate and we welcome the opportunity to harness their energy. The voluntary sector sometimes takes on with great relish the role of scrutinising and challenging the Executive and government at every level; that is a powerful thing that is not to be resisted.
I believe that the debate is central to understanding not only how our social and community experience can be developed, but how our economy and enterprise approaches can be developed. We often say that we celebrate the voluntary sector, but the challenge will be for us to act to ensure that the sector is vibrant, sustainable, strong and independent, that it works with government and with local authorities and that it works with all those who are committed to a strong and supportive Scotland where everyone has equal opportunities.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the contribution that the voluntary sector and social economy make to Scotland; supports the Scottish Executive's continued commitment to developing them through Futurebuilders Scotland, the Volunteering Strategy and Project Scotland and the development and promotion of legislation on charities; supports the Strategic Funding Review being undertaken with SCVO and COSLA; welcomes the establishment of a Social Economy Advisory Board, and supports the Executive in developing a detailed strategy, in partnership with the voluntary sector, for the sector's future.
I admire the minister's attempt to display psychic ability, but I have to say that she got it wrong. Although I will move the SNP amendment, I will also be consensual; there is nothing in the Executive's motion with which the SNP disagrees.
We are discussing a huge sector and I appreciated the minister's comments about how we can have a debate such as this without its sounding cuddly. We have to recognise the importance of the social economy to the general economy of the country. After all, according to Communities Scotland—which heads up futurebuilders Scotland—the social economy is worth about £2.2 billion to the Scottish economy and employs about 100,000 people. It also involves 700,000 volunteers in more than 50,000 organisations.
One issue is that we must recognise what the social economy is. The Executive has acknowledged that by feeling the need to clarify in its motion the contribution that the voluntary sector and the social economy make. Folk in the voluntary sector sometimes do not recognise themselves as being part of the social economy, which is a measure of how diverse the voluntary sector is. The sector ranges from the one person who helps out in a buddy scheme as a befriender or who cares for someone, to the people who work in social enterprises.
Social enterprises often emerge from the traditional voluntary sector and often share the values and some of the characteristics of voluntary organisations, but there is a difference between the two. Social enterprises are different from traditional voluntary work and small-scale voluntary organisations because, as is stated by the Scottish Social Enterprise Coalition, social enterprise is about the
"integration of business aims, methodologies and behaviours into their organisations"
and social enterprises seek to create profits that are ploughed back in to communities. Not all voluntary organisations look to create profit: the raison d'être of some is to provide services, so profit does not come into it.
The Executive's motion mentions quite a few good on-going initiatives, such as futurebuilders Scotland. I have followed the futurebuilders strategy and I ask the minister to say how progress is going, because it seems to me that futurebuilders got off the ground a bit more slowly than was intended. At first it was said that it would run from 2004 to 2006, but now everyone is talking about 2007. Will futurebuilders go beyond that? Key aspects of making such initiatives work are their development and their sustainability. Too often, initiatives are stopped before their full value becomes apparent.
One of the main aims of futurebuilders is regeneration of disadvantaged areas. I am concerned that we are not placing enough emphasis on people and that we are not giving sufficient recognition to the fact that many smaller voluntary organisations that are not social enterprises contribute to regeneration throughout the country by operating in the voluntary sector and by making quality of life better for many people in terms of their physical, mental and emotional health. I suggest that that leads to the ability to create wealth. If health is not included in such measures to start with, communities will not be able to move on and create wealth.
As I said, I would appreciate a statement about how the futurebuilders Scotland investment is progressing. I know that the first stage of applications for the first range of projects has now closed. When will the process be opened up again for stage two?
The volunteering strategy is also mentioned in the motion. We are talking about social enterprises, but they start with volunteers. I was interested to read a submission from Community Enterprise in Strathclyde. Although we hear good things from Communities Scotland and have heard good things from the minister today, there is still scepticism about how futurebuilders is working. Community Enterprise states:
"It has become, almost by default, yet another time-limited grant scheme that will no doubt support some interesting organisations and activities, but will not shift either the social economy or the public sector very far towards embracing a culture of investment instead of dependency."
I would appreciate the minister's views on that, because obviously not everyone in the sector is convinced by what is happening.
Project Scotland is a good idea. We always welcome initiatives that help young people to become involved in their communities. I hope that the initiative will be expanded into other areas in which the Executive is involved. When I read the press release about the scheme, I wondered whether projects could be tied in with our international strategy in order to allow our young people to find out what life is like on the other side of the world. Let us use the Scotland-Malawi partnership that we are all talking about to help people in both places.
The Executive is talking about allowing volunteers who are on placements to continue to receive benefits. That is important, but we could go further. The reality is that most people who take up voluntary placements can do so with the comfort of knowing that when they come home they can slot back into their job, family or support network. It is difficult for a person who is homeless and who has no support network to go away to volunteer and then come back. I ask the Executive to address that, too.
You have one minute left.
I wanted to mention more good stuff, but as I have only one minute left I had better skip much of what I was going to say—I bet that Johann Lamont is glad about that.
I do not understand why the Executive does not support the Scottish National Party amendment. We all know that, over and over again, voluntary organisations ask for core funding that will allow them to continue their activities. Such organisations provide huge services to local authorities and to the Executive, but much of the time and effort that could be spent on providing services is spent on running around daft, looking for a scheme that might give them money. Organisations that provide services on behalf of local authorities and which accord with the Scottish Executive's aims and policies should be core funded so that they can provide those services properly. Such organisations are part of the social economy and if we do not value their contribution we do a disservice to the volunteers who work in them.
I cannot support the Green amendment and I am surprised that the Executive supports it. The Executive always talks about finding Scottish solutions for Scottish problems, but the approach that that amendment calls for could create more delays by adding another layer and tying our strategy in with that of the Department of Trade and Industry. Let us just get on and do something for Scotland. We can start by telling voluntary organisations, "Yes, you're valued. We'll give you the core funding that will allow you to work with us to deliver what is required."
I move amendment S2M-2825.1, to insert at end:
"to include measures to ensure continued and stable core funding for voluntary organisations that are expected to deliver ministerial and local government policy objectives."
I call Mark Ballard, to speak to and move amendment S2M-2825.2.
Presiding Officer, I indicated that I would speak to and move the amendment.
Yes, okay. Will Mr Ballard close?
Yes.
That is fine.
This is a welcome opportunity to discuss the social economy. The term, "social economy" is sometimes difficult to pin down. We use it to define much that lies between the purely public realm and the purely private realm in which the only objective is profit. However, "social economy" is not a synonym of "voluntary sector". That is reflected in the Executive motion. The social economy includes the formal voluntary sector and many charitable organisations, but it should also be understood to include the domestic economy and the social enterprise sector, on which the Green amendment focuses. That is not to undermine the significance of the traditional voluntary sector. I am a former employee of that sector and am delighted to endorse the warm words about its value to society that we heard from the minister and Linda Fabiani. However, the not-for-profit organisations with which we are all familiar, which are often grant funded and project oriented, are just part of the wider social economy, which also includes organisations that choose to be the more-than-profit organisations that are known as social enterprises.
Social enterprises trade in markets and make use of grants and subsidies in a way that is similar to the approach of commercial small and medium-sized enterprises. They make profit, but they do so in order to ensure their long-term sustainability. They do not distribute profit to private shareholders or seek always to maximise profit, because their approach to markets is based on a social purpose or a public good. The in-built profit element enables organisations to grow and to make long-term plans. Voluntary organisations can become locked into dependence on grant funding, which gives them little incentive to innovate and become self-sustaining.
Part of the confusion surrounding the social economy is that, although traditional voluntary organisations and new social enterprises share certain values and organisational features, they do not always take the same approach to sustainability, to markets, to enterprise and to entrepreneurship. The best social enterprises combine the ethos of the voluntary sector with the entrepreneurship of the private sector.
Social enterprises take a wide variety of forms. They can be co-operatives, development trusts or companies limited by guarantee, and community interest companies will no doubt emerge, too. However, the legal status of an organisation should not be taken as being its defining feature. What unites all such enterprises is social purpose and a commitment to objectives that go beyond a return on capital.
A strategy for the social economy as a whole should not focus only on the needs of the traditional voluntary organisations or charities, or on any other single form of organisation. A successful strategy will be highly differentiated and will recognise the complexity of the social economy. No one assumes that the private sector requires a single policy—one instrument or one toolkit from the Executive's Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department. Large amounts of Government resources are directed at development agencies and at national, regional and local strategies. That reflects the complexity and the diverse needs of the private sector, but the social economy requires similar thinking and the deputy minister's words showed that the Executive understands that type of thinking. The recent announcement on the social investment Scotland futurebuilders plus fund showed that further steps were being taken in the right direction.
A cross-departmental approach to the social economy is required. The natural policy environment for not-for-profit organisations should remain with the Executive department responsible for communities, but it is clear that social enterprises need to have a strategic position within the department that is responsible for enterprise.
Some people compare the social economy to a family. Like family members, organisations in the social economy may look a bit like one another and may share certain characteristics. However, they sometimes have very different personalities and, despite their similarities, there are differences. One difference is the extent to which they lean towards public sector or private sector methodologies and behaviours. Social enterprises tend to come from one side of the family, but so far, policy development in Scotland has revolved around the other side of the family. I hope that that will change and I think I am justified in expecting that it might.
I apologise because I am unable to remain for the whole debate.
I move amendment S2M-2825.2, to insert at end:
"recognises the breadth of the social economy in Scotland; further recognises the distinctive contribution that co-operatives and social enterprises make to the social economy; recommends the development of a differentiated strategy to meet the specific needs of the social enterprise sector of the social economy, and further recommends that such a strategy be developed in partnership with social enterprises and their networks beyond the voluntary sector, be aligned with the development of the Co-operative Development Agency and be aligned with the Department of Trade and Industry's strategy to support social enterprise across the rest of the United Kingdom."
I am pleased to speak in the debate, both as an MSP and—like many others here today—as a former volunteer in organisations ranging from Child Support Agency tribunals to citizens advice bureaux.
There is no doubt about the value that volunteers bring to a service, or of the enormous personal benefit that volunteers can gain from volunteering. Scottish Conservatives support the principles and the commitment in the motion, just as we support the broad measures in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill. However, like others, I will be raising some issues at stage 3 of that bill.
I cannot claim to be an expert on the voluntary sector. However, I note that in recent years we have had the volunteer strategy, the Scottish compact, the United Kingdom-wide millennium volunteers and the project Scotland partnerships, among other initiatives. Today, we heard about the development of a detailed strategy. I welcome this mother of all strategies and I hope that it will give us one point of reference, because we all know that mothers know best. We also support the encouragement of people from all backgrounds—disabled people, young people, pensioners—to participate in volunteering.
Voluntary sector funding is always a problem, which was highlighted in the briefing that we have received from Barnardo's Scotland, so I support the principles in Linda Fabiani's amendment. The briefing from Barnardo's states:
"Short term funding packages, and the continual need to look towards the next reviews and applications, constantly undermine the good work of voluntary sector service providers."
I find it difficult to understand why an organisation such as the citizens advice bureau in Inverness has to struggle and penny pinch to provide its excellent and first-class services on debt counselling, support, benefits reviews and a wide range of other issues. This is happening at a time when the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has been given more than £1 million to purchase plush new offices on a greenfield site on the outskirts of Inverness. I am sure that the minister can clarify such funding issues.
Does the member agree that it is important that voluntary organisations have good premises and that they should not always have to work up a stair in an old building? Does she welcome that new development?
I would welcome it, if the member would let me develop my point. I am trying to point out the difference between the funding for front-line services and funding for organisations that make policy. I am sure that the minister will clarify why we have a funding situation whereby the part of the voluntary sector that provides much-needed front-line services is strapped for cash, while the part that determines policies has no such worries.
I highlight the high cost of regulation and inspection by the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care for organisations such as Crossroads, which has about eight groups in the Highlands and Islands, each of which pays more than £2,000 to the care commission. In some cases, that is more than the groups can raise in a year. The organisation is considering the issue to see how it can be dealt with in the future.
I commend the futurebuilders plus initiative, on which my colleagues will expand, and I acknowledge the commitment to the social economy. One of the best examples of the social economy in the area that I represent must be the Shetland Soap Company, which I note from the briefing papers has received further funding from the Executive to fit out its new shop in Orkney, to develop new products and a new furniture recycling unit and to establish markets in Europe. The company confirms Patrick Harvie's point about the importance of organisations' business initiatives as well as their social responsibilities. I helped the company to get its products into our Parliament shop, which has added to its success. The Shetland Soap Company does not just make a good product; it employs people who have disabilities, which promotes social inclusion, self-confidence and independence and helps take people off benefits and reduce dependency. The company provides jobs in which such people are valued and supported for their contribution. In other words, social firms can help people to help themselves. We support the Executive's motion.
I will begin by dealing with the voluntary sector and the social economy, after which I will mention disclosure and explain why I think that we are going about the subject in the wrong way.
The voluntary sector and the social economy must come together more. In the past, there has been a division between the voluntary sector, in which people have put up their hands for grants, and the social economy, in which people have created businesses. We must bring the two sectors together, because they both try to improve communities, albeit in different ways. The increase in the social economy is important.
Now that I have studied the amendments with more care than I had time to do before, I do not see why the Executive cannot accept Linda Fabiani's amendment. There may be a problem with terminology, but the intention behind the amendment and its wording seem to be right on the target. Perhaps the minister will explain why he does not accept it.
I thank Donald Gorrie for his kind words. Does he agree that, when we were on the Justice 1 Committee together, we heard of many wonderful rehabilitation courses and throughcare schemes for prisoners that hit the buffers because they had to fight for streams of funding? That is an example of what our amendment aims at.
All members who have dealings with the voluntary sector constantly hear the refrain that short-term funding that is tied to a particular project, even for three years, is no good, because it does not allow people to deliver as well as they could do. We need more money in the system anyway, but we could use our existing moneys much better if we set up a system of guaranteed grants. So long as an organisation delivers activities that the council, the Government and the community want, its funding should be secure.
We should explore the idea of the Executive getting together with the national lottery—which I know is looking at the issue—to set up local boards at council or some other suitable level. The boards should bring together people from the council, the business community, the voluntary sector and the social enterprise community, who could say, "This is a good organisation and you should keep on funding it." They could also support new social enterprises with start-up money, for example. We need to have a local focus and involve councils without giving them exclusive control. If we sort out funding and help social enterprises by, for example, improving the fairness of councils' and other organisations' procurement policies, we could give them a fair start in life, which would be a great step forward.
The second issue that I wish to raise is disclosure. We have created a monster. The intention is good and obviously we have to have rules, but the rules and their interpretation are totally ridiculous and over the top. We have got into the state of mind that Scotland had in the 17th century, when there was a witch-hunting mania. Things have gone beyond the level of common sense. We have to treat disclosure more sensibly, because the system is seriously harming the voluntary sector. We could have a system involving a kind of credit card, so that once people had been disclosured they could just show their card; they would not have to be repeatedly disclosured for each job.
I appreciate Donald Gorrie's concerns. It is important that we do not impede volunteers from going into the voluntary sector. However, the safety of vulnerable adults and children is paramount. We must ensure that we protect our volunteers and the people with whom they work. What is Donald Gorrie's alternative, if we are not constantly to ensure that people are suitable to work with individuals and organisations?
It is totally ludicrous that one's disclosure is out of date the day after it is received. The rule that a sports coach who helps a lot of different clubs has to be disclosured by each club is mad. We should not be producing mad systems. The system is well intentioned and I accept that we have to have one, but we have to sort it out. The current scheme is the Parliament's fault—the Parliament imposed it on the Executive, which wanted a more limited scheme.
We have spent 20, 30 or 40 years trying to help our poorer communities in entirely the wrong way. People like me have invented schemes such as urban aid—that was the name many years ago—and money has been put in, but the net result has been nil. The same areas have the same problems and there is the same gulf between richer areas and poorer areas. The same areas have the highest offending rates, the lowest educational standards, the lowest health standards and the greatest housing problems, for example.
I am all for putting money into areas to improve housing and physical arrangements, but to help the community we must help the people in the community to help themselves. In the parable of the talents, the boss man did not say, "Here is some money. Each of you go away and plant some vines." He said, "Here's some money. Get on with what you want to do." Some of the people had failures, but some had great success. That is how to progress. If we help people in communities to help themselves and to start from scratch, we will do much better. Inventing nice schemes, projects and national funds has proved a failure and we should give it up.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this afternoon's important debate on the voluntary sector and the social economy. As the minister has said, volunteering is crucial to our agenda of closing the opportunity gap and building stronger communities. Volunteering helps in the fight against poverty by providing projects that are focused on our most deprived communities with valuable manpower and resources.
I take the opportunity to thank the Council for Voluntary Service Fife and all the organisations and individuals who provide a wide range of support in my area. Those bodies include the local organisation for survivors of childhood sexual abuse and the biggest furniture charity in the kingdom of Fife—Furniture Plus Ltd—which is based in my home town and which makes a positive contribution to my community. I thank all those organisations for making my constituency a better place to live in.
The SCVO welcomes the focus on the social economy, but points out that our understanding of that economy should not be restricted to enterprises that typically use a business model to deliver services, even though they form an important part of it.
Although much progress is being made through the strategic funding review, I believe that a strategic approach to funding is long overdue, as the minister said. The voluntary sector needs to concentrate on delivery rather than on the continued uncertainty that short-term, project-based funding brings. The sector feels the need continually to reinvent itself in order to attract funding streams. I welcome the minister's commitment to addressing those significant issues.
I welcome, too, this week's announcement about the national youth voluntary programme, which I believe will help to remove the barriers that volunteers—especially young volunteers—face and to improve the volunteering experience. It will also give 16 to 25-year-olds a chance to get involved in, and to contribute to, their communities and will be important in helping them to gain experience and make informed choices about their future. The national youth voluntary programme is a unique partnership between the public, private and voluntary sectors and I very much welcome the £8 million investment in the initiative.
The briefing note with which Volunteer Development Scotland provided MSPs in preparation for today's debate calls on us to acknowledge the valuable contribution that volunteers make to Scotland's social economy, which other members have highlighted. Volunteer Development Scotland asks us to support action that will enable volunteers to continue to improve their input to the development of the social economy. In her speech, the minister met that request.
An exemplar of best practice exists in my constituency. The Fife social economy partnership, which was established in 2004, includes representation from Fife Council, Fife Enterprise, Communities Scotland and the voluntary sector. The group has made it clear that any strategy for Fife must not only address the development of individual organisations, but take a strategic approach to the growth of the social economy sector. A major aim of the sector is to consider the market within which social enterprises operate.
Like the minister, I am a Labour and Co-operative member and I believe that it is important to recognise the contribution that the social enterprise sector—in which co-operatives play an important role—makes. The co-operative model has a good track record and offers sustainability. A co-operative development agency will play a key role in the creation, promotion and development of sustainable co-operative businesses in local communities and will provide much-needed support, advice and training to encourage and enable those who seek to improve the growth of co-operatives within our community. I look forward to the setting up of such an agency, as I believe that it will offer a way of achieving better synergy between the enterprise and communities portfolios.
Concerns have been expressed about the role of Scottish Enterprise and whether it should act as a private business development agency rather than as an economic development agency. We must discuss that seriously.
In conclusion, I welcome the opportunity that the debate provides to congratulate on their work the voluntary sector in Scotland and the individuals who give up so much of their time to support their local communities. I believe that the motion in the name of the minister allows us to show our appreciation of the sector and to make our commitment to it. I support the motion and the Green party amendment.
From what we have heard today, it is self-evident that volunteers, the social economy and community enterprises are increasingly important to Scotland. I recognise that they all play an important role in bolstering the overall macroeconomy.
Service provision in communities across the country is benefiting from the role that self-motivated people are playing in finding, creating and involving themselves in a wide variety of worthwhile projects. Volunteers are helping local areas to become more attractive to investors and to potential new residents.
Today, I will skew my comments towards the Highlands and Islands and rural Scotland. In doing so, I recognise that volunteering and involvement in community and social enterprises are pervasive, necessary and successful across the country. I join the chamber in congratulating those who give their time and limit their earning potential by taking part in such ventures.
I believe that the number of social enterprises per head of population is greater in the Highlands and Islands than elsewhere in the country. That is an indicator not only of the get-up-and-go attitude that is pervasive in the Highlands and Islands, but of the fact that many local people are willing and see the need to fill gaps in service provision and to take positive steps to promote long-term economic and service-level recovery.
That is happening in spite of problems that frequently make involvement more difficult, such as population sparsity, greater distances and lower average incomes. I am also thinking of issues such as the shortage of fellow volunteers with whom to share the workload, income sacrifice and the personal cost of participation. I am proud to applaud the efforts of those people who participate. I am also keen to see that those involved are held up as role models and helped so that their ventures can be taken to more sustainable and even more valuable levels.
There is a long tradition of social ventures in the Highlands and Islands. I remember reading a book called, I think, "After the '45", which I thought would be all about redcoats and Highlanders. It was about nothing of the kind; it was about economic recovery. It talked about the expatriate Scots in the London coffee houses of the 1750s, subscribing money to fund the building of west coast fishing villages and thereby saving people from destitution.
One of the founders—a particularly wealthy individual—came to the same conclusion that many people have reached subsequently: a person cannot be truly happy until he or she gives themselves and their assets over to beneficence, which is defined as doing good for other people. That was what latterly motivated Carnegie and, indeed, what motivates most people who volunteer today.
However, volunteers need more than job satisfaction; they also need support and guidance. I recognise that the Executive is improving the provision of both. Nevertheless, it is important that the sector is kept under review. We need to ensure that the good projects that deliver Executive and local government policy developments are fairly funded. We also need to ensure that the projects that work well elsewhere and that are cash positive are transferred to the communities that would benefit from them and that capable people on worthwhile projects continue to be helped to navigate funding and compliance issues.
Ideally, the Executive should answer the SCVO's call for a strategic approach to voluntary sector funding. Such an approach could also lead to the increased involvement of the social economy in the provision of public services—social enterprises would be value-for-money, quality, responsive and local-fulfilment vehicles to improve services and to keep more money in the local economy. Moreover, that approach could offer a route by which the sector can genuinely contribute towards fulfilling the aspirations for efficient government. That will need a mature debate and the acceptance of the SNP amendment.
Because many social enterprises are successful, the lessons that can be learned from them can permeate mainstream business in Scotland. I note, by way of endorsement, that some stock market analysts have said that, in general, companies that have a high level of financial participation by management and employees outperform competitors who exclude employees from sharing directly in company success.
I also note the increased incidence of universities in the United States of America spinning out their technology and bright people into not-for-profit organisations, which are much more likely to be rooted in place—or, in the case of the USA, in state. Indeed, one of the great benefits that Scottish social and community ventures deliver to the Scottish economy and our rural economy is that they are rooted in place. They can therefore boost local living standards, create local jobs, improve the quality of life and—much more important—encourage people to stay in and come to the area.
Although I acknowledge the importance of not-for-profit enterprises, I wonder whether Jim Mather agrees that it is also important that we consider more-than-profit organisations, which combine profit with a social mission.
I look forward to seeing a diverse economy in which everything has its place. A nice development in the US has occurred downstream from not-for-profit organisations, with the introduction of commercial not-for-profit companies that keep much of the wealth in local areas and generate more.
Such criteria are important with regard to the credit union movement in Scotland. I draw the Executive's attention to a motion that Fergus Ewing has lodged today. It welcomes the recent European Commission ruling that will effectively remove the cap on Government funding for credit unions, which is set at £68,000 over three years. We must acknowledge that one in 10 Scottish households still lacks basic financial products. Credit unions can play a huge part in that area. I hope that the motion will get widespread support.
I also hope that the Executive will eventually go the extra mile and ensure that social enterprises are funded fairly; I hope that it will strengthen the links and build trust and mutual respect between social enterprises and the public sector. In that context, I support Linda Fabiani's amendment.
I am not sure what the differences are between Fergus Ewing's motion and the motion that Jackie Baillie lodged earlier this week. I know that many of us have signed Jackie Baillie's motion and strongly support the role that credit unions play.
At this point, I must declare an interest: I have been a board member of the Wise Group for 10 years. I should also point out that, about 10 years ago, I was a member of the Kemp commission on the future of voluntary sector organisations, which was instrumental in developing some of the arguments about the need for charity law reform. I am glad that we have achieved legislation that addresses such reform.
The Kemp commission report also highlighted the need for sustainable long-term funding for proper development of voluntary sector organisations. Donald Gorrie made several points with which I did not agree, but I must pick up his reference to urban aid money. The problem with such funding was that it was for a limited period; it came to an end and could not be continued. Any approach to voluntary sector organisations, particularly not-for-profit organisations, should look beyond a limited one-year or two-year timeframe towards assisting the organisations to develop a business growth strategy that will keep them sustainable for many years.
Although I welcome the development of both the futurebuilders strategy and the social economy strategy, we need to take a wider look to ensure that the Executive's overall housing strategy, its broad economic strategy, its approach to local government and the rest of its policies are considered in terms of their impact on voluntary sector and social economy organisations. If, as I believe, we want a strong social economy sector—indeed, I feel that the sector is particularly strong in Scotland—we must acknowledge its existence and nurture and sustain it. It cannot be an afterthought or something that has to fit in with everything else that is happening. We must give careful consideration to the ways in which policy impacts on such organisations.
One of the myths of dealing with poor communities or communities in which many people are unemployed or have particular needs is that the people who live in those communities are somehow different from everyone else and that what they really need is the opportunity to gather together and discuss their problems. I suppose that that could be called the African village approach. People in poor communities very often need exactly the same things as everyone else—for example, they need resources, assistance and chances to move forward into employment.
Our social economy organisations have provided such things—they have moved beyond not knowing what to do and trying to help in some nebulous way towards providing practical forms of assistance. The Wise Group, One Plus, which the minister mentioned, and Barnardo's certainly do that effectively. We have some great social economy organisations.
The Executive's priority must be to consider where organisations can contribute to a delivery agenda that not only fits in with the Executive's delivery agenda, but suits the community's social needs. I am talking about organisations that are not narrow and specific to particular circumstances, but that can bring innovation and expertise to a range of circumstances and can make a positive contribution to the development of our society.
I am concerned by the idea that the strategic futures discussion will be led by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the SCVO. Those are representative organisations and must, in a sense, satisfy a whole range of different interests. However, in constructing a strategy, we cannot satisfy every interest. We must move beyond the particular and make a clear decision about what the objectives are, even though not everyone will be happy with that decision.
I urge ministers to ensure that, in considering how to take the process forward, they do not get bogged down in the square-off between the SCVO and COSLA and in ensuring that everybody is content. If that happens, there will be endless discussions and a posh version of the African village—instead of poor people talking about the future, employed people will be talking about it, and that future will be their future. If we want to progress the social economy, we must be sure about who is delivering, what is being delivered, how things can be sustained and how things fit in with our overall objectives. Those must be ministers' priorities.
I, too, must declare an interest and refer members to the register of interests. I am chairman of two co-operatives and I am a credit union member.
It is tempting to say, "Another day, another launch, another programme, another strategy and another initiative," and to ask whether a difference will be made. Cynics among us would suggest that no difference will be made—indeed, Donald Gorrie suggested that. Despite my five years in politics—indeed, perhaps because of them—I am more than ever convinced of the voluntary sector's importance and of the good work that it does. Apparently, only 25 per cent of Scotland's population are volunteers, but the figure for Ayrshire and the Ayr constituency is much higher, at well over 40 per cent. I applaud the huge number of my constituents who give their time freely and selflessly to supporting volunteering in Ayrshire and the Ayr constituency.
Mentioning specific groups is always invidious, as other groups that equally deserve commendation can be left out. However, with the Presiding Officer's indulgence, I would like to commend to members the good work of a few groups in South Ayrshire. I begin with Victim Support in South Ayrshire, which is chaired by Bob Leitch and backed up by Janie Mortimer and her team. That group's workload has grown enormously in recent years. Volunteers provide a valuable service to the victims of crime in our community. Cathy Jamieson and I will attend the group's annual general meeting in Ayr tonight.
Also invaluable to our communities is the local Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland group, which is led by Sheila Cameron and Linda Allan. Their teams of volunteers do much to help people who suffer from strokes and heart attacks in Ayrshire. It was my pleasure to welcome volunteers from that group to the Parliament recently.
Another group is the Ayr branch of the National Osteoporosis Society, which is led locally by Liz Morland and nationally by Anne Simpson. I declare an interest as the patron of the Ayr branch and commend its work and commitment to relieving pain and providing support to its members.
I am a new board member of the South Ayrshire rape crisis centre and commend the difficult work that it has undertaken. The group is led by Jean Sloan and helps the 1,800 to 1,900 victims of sexual abuse that there are annually in Ayrshire.
All those people and those in groups such as the cancer support groups, multiple sclerosis support groups and WRVS deserve our warmest thanks and support. As a result, we cannot do anything other than support the launch of project Scotland on Tuesday.
In youth work, I commend the good work of the midnight footballers, supported by the Scottish Football Association and the Bank of Scotland, and the volunteer coaches who run the scheme, which I visited recently, for our young people in Ayr. Another youth organisation that I commend to the Parliament, as an ambassador for it, is Girlguiding Scotland in Ayrshire, under the leadership of Frances Henderson and the two county commissioners. Equally, the Scout Association depends on volunteers for the development of our young men. Those are just a few of our voluntary youth organisations, but there are many more.
One issue for today's debate is the fact that volunteers are becoming harder to find, due—in part, at least—to the difficulties and timescales that are involved in getting clearance for volunteers from Disclosure Scotland. Donald Gorrie mentioned that problem, of which the minister is well aware. Although we all agree with the concept, we must be aware that the process and timescales discourage many people who would otherwise have much to give to their communities.
Another point to consider is the fact that the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill must not in any way make it more difficult for voluntary organisations to exist or carry out their work. Less red tape and bureaucracy rather than more should be one of the objectives and outcomes of the bill. We must not presume on the good will of the 50,000 or so voluntary organisations throughout Scotland that want to get on with their work rather than fill in forms, which is so often a consequence of new legislation.
Finally, I mention the tenants and residents groups, community forums and community councils that thrive particularly in my constituency. It is important to encourage such groups because of all the work that they do in building and strengthening the communities that they represent, especially in north Ayr, where I live. None of those grassroots organisations finds its work easy and there is never enough funding to support groups' aspirations in either the short or the long term. Nevertheless, there is a spirit and a sense of humour in adversity and in the face of vandalism, crime and drug abuse that keep these people going. They do more for the self-esteem and confidence of their communities than is often recognised or acknowledged.
Although the Conservatives will support the Executive's motion and both amendments, we believe, as a point of principle, that there ought to be less Government interference in and more independence for the voluntary sector, as Des McNulty said. I hope that the minister will reflect on that view and I look forward to his response.
The motion recognises the value of the contribution that is made by the voluntary sector in Scotland, as it has been recognised by members in numerous debates since 1999. We all accept the value of volunteering, in terms of both the benefit to the community of an increase in services and the benefit to the personal development of people who are involved in volunteering. From food co-ops to credit unions; from the Scout Association to the Girls Brigade and the Boys Brigade; from tenants associations and residents associations to meals on wheels, the efforts of volunteers help to make our communities better places in which to live.
The value of our voluntary sector to the Scottish economy has become evident over the past few years and has been pointed out by many members. The voluntary sector is a major employer in Scotland, and its activities help to keep money within some of our poorest communities. However, the benefits to our society of a vibrant and growing social economy go even wider than those that I have mentioned. In his book "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community", Professor Robert Putnam describes what he and others have termed "social capital". In simple terms, social capital refers to the collective value of all social networks and the inclinations that arise from those for people to do things for one another—what Putnam terms the "norms of reciprocity".
Examples of social capital include most of the activities that we are debating today, such as community groups and church groups. They also include friendship and solidarity groups and groups of common interest, such as trade unions and clubs. Through extensive research in the United States, Putnam finds that increased levels of social capital have a wide-ranging, positive impact on a society and on the individuals within that society. Where strong social networks exist and where people take time to do things for others, we find improved levels of general health, improved education levels, lower crime rates and increased satisfaction with life.
Putnam's conclusions are quite startling. Volunteering and becoming active in one's community are not only altruistic actions but help to make individuals healthier and happier. His work shows how social bonds are the most powerful predictor of life satisfaction. For example, he reports that, in terms of personal satisfaction, getting married is the equivalent to quadrupling one's income but that attending a club meeting regularly is the equivalent of doubling one's income.
I would rather join a club.
Perhaps Linda Fabiani should join a couple of clubs and forget about marriage.
In contrast, Putnam goes on to describe the impact of the decline of social capital in the United States of America in the past 20 years, which has led to increased health problems, increased personal discontent and increased crime levels. He blames a number of modern pressures on that reduction in social capital and highlights the need for each of us to reconnect our communities.
That is why I believe that we need a range of measures to stimulate and nurture social capital. We need to become more active in our communities and encourage others to do so. We also need to ensure that the Government provides the range of support and measures that are required to encourage volunteering and to remove any barriers to community participation. That is why I welcome the steps that are being taken by the Scottish Executive to support volunteering and to encourage more young people to volunteer. For example, the volunteering strategy that was launched in May 2004 aims to remove barriers to volunteering and improve volunteering experiences, and project Scotland aims to involve more young people between the ages of 16 and 25 in volunteering activities. That new and exciting project will provide young people with allowances and expenses that will enable them to volunteer for a period of between three and 12 months.
A wonderful example of building social capital in my constituency is the work that is carried out by the young people in the just youth project, who have worked with residents in a local sheltered housing complex to break down intergenerational barriers and build trust between young and old. They have learned to live with one another, to work together and to support one another. That has been a positive experience for the community.
Volunteering and the voluntary sector have been among the most frequently debated subjects since the birth of this Parliament, which is as it should be. Given the impact that volunteering has and its potential to change Scotland for the better, we must ensure that we in this Parliament do everything in our power to increase the level of volunteering in Scotland. We must seek to build connections and bonds within our communities both directly, through our own efforts, and indirectly, through the creation of policies and legislation that support that endeavour.
Putnam says:
"like cookies dropped into a cookie jar, each of these encounters is a tiny investment in social capital."
I support that sentiment and the Executive's motion.
We are proud of our voluntary sector, and I would like to congratulate everyone who is involved in the sector. It goes without saying that they are a vital resource in any community and that the vast majority of them are not paid to do the work that they do.
It is interesting to note that there are 50,000 voluntary organisations in Scotland, with more than 1.2 million volunteers. They are driven not by profit but by a desire to help society and their community. Those numbers are encouraging in a world that increasingly seems to be driven by a cynical profit motive.
Many communities throughout Scotland are nearly wholly reliant on volunteers to provide help to the elderly and to disabled people, old and young. It must be remembered that, although most of those volunteers are not paid for their services, significant costs are attached to the services that they deliver. In rural areas, including my constituency, there are significant additional costs associated with expenses for travel between isolated communities.
A large proportion of volunteers are not professionally trained, yet many of them have developed a great deal of expertise, which we agree is a vital resource in society. Whatever the nature of volunteers' expertise, the ability to raise money is necessary for all volunteering. The voluntary sector raised more than £2 billion last year—a vast amount of money. Nearly half of that had to be self-generated. I would argue that much of the time spent raising that money would have been better spent caring for people in communities. I am sure that volunteers themselves would agree with that sentiment.
Small rural volunteering organisations in the Highlands are being crippled on a daily basis by escalating costs. The care commission charges those organisations between £2,000 and £3,000 for registration. That is a huge amount of money for an organisation that might be run by only a handful of volunteers. In addition to those charges, organisations must also meet the additional costs of property rates, electricity bills, telephone charges and travel expenses, as well as the increased expense of water and sewerage charges.
Although the Government donates a proportion of the income received by voluntary organisations, it tends to give with one hand and take away with the other. I refer in particular to the charges imposed by the care commission. At the same time as the care commission is under the wing of the Government, it is also an arm of Government. It should be encouraged to look again at its charge levels.
The Scottish Executive would do well to remember that it would be almost impossible to measure the financial cost of delivering voluntary services. I hope that it will always keep that in mind, especially in relation to the care commission charges that I have just mentioned. There are further additional costs that have to be met by small voluntary organisations. There is no doubt that, if we lose our volunteers in society, it will be impossible for the Government to fill the breach, nor could it provide anything like the excellent service that is currently available to those in need.
I suggest that we must all collectively ensure that the voluntary sector's finances are assured and are sufficient to meet the ever-increasing demands on its services. We would be the poorer without those services in our communities. I support the motion, and I suggest that core funding be a major topic of debate in support of our voluntary services in the months ahead.
I am pleased to support the Executive's motion. Earlier this year, I took part in an enterprise culture debate, in which I argued for more investment in the social economy as a means of closing the opportunity gap and thus contributing to community regeneration and strengthening the wider Scottish economy.
The social economy in Scotland has enormous potential, as we have heard in a number of speeches. Be it in financial services, in child care or in retail, the social enterprise sector has the ability to make lasting changes in communities throughout Scotland. We need only consider the growth of credit unions and the difference that they have made to the lives of countless individuals to appreciate the potential and the demand for such enterprises and services.
If I am correct in recalling this, I think that it was the Executive that made the case in Europe to which Jim Mather referred earlier. I am sure that the minister will pick up that point when he winds up.
The social economy is frequently at the forefront of developing innovative new ways to do business, to create wealth and jobs and to promote change. The volunteering opportunities that are presented by the sector often create a valuable route to permanent employment for volunteers, and provide worthwhile and fulfilling opportunities for others.
In my constituency, there is a range of social enterprises that provide valuable services to the community. The Deputy Minister for Communities mentioned child care services in her opening speech, and it is important to mention Lanarkshire Childcare Services, which provides a range of child care options for families, including breakfast clubs, after-school care and holiday play schemes. I suppose that I should declare an interest, in that my son participates in that organisation's activities.
Does the member agree that where such organisations provide services and deliver ministerial and local government policy objectives, they should be adequately core funded?
It is certainly important to explore that, but I am not sure that Linda Fabiani's amendment is the right way forward. I will be interested to hear what the Minister for Communities has to say on the points that have been made about the amendment. There is certainly no doubt that such organisations need funding to continue. They provide an important service in the community.
Another enterprise that has had considerable success is the North Lanarkshire Federation of Food Co-operatives, which operates as a small company limited by guarantee and runs 11 co-ops throughout North Lanarkshire on a not-for-profit basis. The co-ops are community centred and driven and provide low-cost, high-quality produce and groceries. The federation has grown in strength since its inception in 1989 and regularly works in partnership with Lanarkshire NHS Board and North Lanarkshire Council as well as with national agencies such as the Scottish community diet project. Central to the success of the federation is the considerable support and recognition that it has been given by North Lanarkshire Council. The federation regularly supplies nurseries, playgroups and schools with produce for educational initiatives. Donald Gorrie referred to such work in his speech.
Most recently, the federation has been in talks with North Lanarkshire Council to secure a service-level agreement to provide fruit for the 5,000 children who are set to benefit from the council's initiative to provide free fruit to nurseries. That partnership agreement will enable the federation not only to double its capacity and potentially extend its workforce but to consolidate its role in helping to deliver national priorities at a local level. The federation's local co-ops, a number of which serve some of the poorest communities in North Lanarkshire, report year-on-year growth in the sale of fruit and vegetables, with one co-op reporting a turnover of £500 per day on fruit and vegetables alone.
Not only are food co-ops making a difference in economic terms by reducing the household food bills of local families, but they are playing a key role in promoting and improving access to healthier dietary choices for people in key communities. I think that that is the type of work that Linda Fabiani is referring to in her amendment, but I want to hear what the minister has to say about it. The North Lanarkshire Federation of Food Co-operatives provides an excellent example of the way in which social enterprises can offer the Government a range of solutions to meet its goals, whether on health improvement priorities, sustainable economic development or aiding public service delivery.
I agree with Des McNulty's comments on awareness raising. In order fully to harness the potential of the social enterprise sector we need to increase promotion of it as a viable option for major service providers such as local authorities and health boards. We also need to encourage greater recognition of social enterprises among grant-making bodies and foster a culture of social enterprise within communities.
I am sure that members throughout the chamber agree that the Scottish Executive has made a significant commitment to developing the social economy in Scotland. The £18 million futurebuilders programme has awarded some £3 million to 80 organisations in the social economy and £150,000 to 85 individual social entrepreneurs, and that is just since December. As we heard today, the Executive has also made a commitment towards establishing a co-operative development agency, which will, I hope, work further to galvanise and promote the sector. I understand that an announcement on that is expected soon, and I wonder whether the Minister can comment on it in his closing remarks.
In closing, I congratulate the Scottish Executive on its willingness to support the voluntary sector and the development of our social economy. I welcome the commitment that has been shown by local authorities such as North Lanarkshire Council and other service providers to invest in local social enterprises. Most of all, I commend the many thousands of individuals who work in the social enterprise sector in Scotland, both the paid and the unpaid.
The Parliament should be one place that has an intimate and deep understanding of volunteering. I hope that none of us was elected to this place without undertaking at least some voluntary work for our respective political parties before qualifying for selection as a candidate. If the Parliament is not the place for an informed debate about volunteering, it would be hard to find such a place. If we leave entirely aside relatively minor differences about the motion and the amendments, we all point broadly in the same direction and bring our experience and contribution to the debate.
I volunteer far too often. This is my 197th parliamentary speech—that might be too many for members and for me, too.
We have had a bit of a hang-up in the debate about definitions. An important point about definitions is that they can be walls that constrain a subject. If something does not fall inside the walls, it does not fall inside the definition. It would be better for us to think of definitions as scaffolding that enables us to navigate to different points in a topic. I hope that we will take such an approach.
For example, when Patrick Harvie was here, he talked about profit. My view about profit is slightly different from his—I do not measure profit just by the folding stuff in my hip pocket. Profit concerns what is delivered back. That may be measured in money, in lives that have been saved or in the personal development of individuals.
I will speak for Patrick Harvie, who apologised for having to leave. Does Stewart Stevenson agree that profit is key for many social enterprises? If they are funded only for project work, they have no opportunity to develop reserves, to innovate and to go beyond the work that they have been asked to do. Profit is the key to allowing them flexibility and sustainability.
I suspect that I do not really disagree, although I would not call money profit in that context. It is interesting that the Greens take a more fundamentalist view of money than I do, which is slightly unexpected. However, we will not worry about that, because we do not really disagree.
A slightly different expression of the sector's financial value is that it has £1,000 of assets per head of population in Scotland, which amounts to £5 billion. That is an effective and real measure of what is going on.
The Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill that is going through Parliament gives us another insight. As part of my research, I found more than 500 charities with addresses in my constituency. I know that others are active in my constituency but for legal reasons happen to have their head offices in Aberdeen, so they fell through my filter. The number of charities is huge.
What the voluntary sector does is extremely diverse. SCVO figures show that arts and sports account for 17 per cent of activity, that work with children and families accounts for 18 per cent and that community development and social enterprise account for 13 per cent. The SCVO has provided excellent information for us.
We cannot run organisations without income, of which trading, rents and investments provide nearly half—45 per cent. I will consider the sources of funding for the SCVO's panel. I commend the Scottish Executive for increasing its funding by 8 per cent from 2003-04, but we should put that in context. Local authorities did better and increased their funding by 10 per cent. The percentage of household expenditure on donations is only part of the funding but is nonetheless interesting. It rose from 1.5 per cent in 1998 to 2000 to 2 per cent in 2001 to 2003, which is a 33 per cent increase. Well as the Executive is doing, it is clear that it can do more.
The Executive is considering its position on the Big Lottery Fund. From an entirely personal point of view—this is not my party's position—I deeply regret the fact that so many organisations rely on what I regard as the immoral industry of gambling. Furthermore, much of that gambling money is taken from our poorest communities. On a practical level, I am far from convinced that the lottery is of any real benefit.
Volunteer Development Scotland makes the interesting point that it wants volunteers to be properly supported in their management and leadership roles. When we volunteer, we gain a great deal. As John Farquhar Munro said, we become well-trained. However, having looked through the 951 Scottish vocational qualifications, I see that no SVQ relates directly to volunteering. Perhaps we could encourage more young people to make a contribution if they could also gain that benefit. Volunteering can become a habit—an absolutely excellent habit.
Let me end by commending a slightly unusual organisation. The Mozilla Foundation is a worldwide organisation that develops software for public use at no cost. It is a tremendous thing. I have discarded all Bill Gates's rubbish and I now use Mozilla for browsing the web and for word processing. Some 50 million copies of the Mozilla internet browser have just been delivered to people around the world at no cost. Volunteers can do big things as well as small things; we must support them to do both.
We move to wind-up speeches.
Today's debate has given us an opportunity to celebrate the social economy in all its diversity, but the key issue is how to build a sustainable social economy. As the Deputy Minister for Communities rightly said, sustainability is achieved when organisations have a sufficiently broad base to be self-reliant. We need to consider how we can build that kind of strong, self-reliant voluntary sector and social enterprise sector.
As the minister said, organisations must determine what services look like. It must also be up to organisations to determine when to work in partnership with the state and when to take a different tack. As Patrick Harvie argued in his opening speech, the social enterprise sector is key because it provides a model for organisations that combines the ethos of the voluntary sector with the entrepreneurship of the private sector.
Both Jim Mather and Des McNulty mentioned the potential role for social enterprises in delivering public services that were previously delivered by the state. That is an important concept that we should discuss. It presents a challenge to the idea that only the state can deliver such services. We need to consider how social enterprises might take on that kind of role.
On the delivery of public services, if social enterprises are to become part of the economy, they must be able to develop by tendering for public services. Does the member share my concern that, according to the Scottish social enterprise coalition, social enterprises face a series of barriers in competing for public contracts because of risk aversion and because of contracts being scaled up in a way that favours large organisations? Does he agree that social enterprises should be able to get involved in that market?
I very much agree with Linda Fabiani and the Scottish social enterprise coalition. All too often, the possibility of best-value procurement is mere rhetoric rather than reality. We do not get the best possible value because social enterprises are not given the opportunity to tender for the delivery of public services. Social enterprises also compete with—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise for interrupting Mark Ballard, but I point out that there is no minister on the front bench to listen to his speech.
Carry on, Mr Ballard.
I do not mind.
There is also a role for social enterprises in competing with private enterprise to deliver goods and services that are every bit as good as those delivered by the private sector but which have a wider social or environmental vision on top of that. I have been incredibly heartened by the growth of the fair trade movement, which is a really good example of social enterprise. Coffee in the form of Café Direct is every bit as good as the coffee on the rest of the supermarket shelves, but with the guarantee of social and environmental sustainability and responsibility.
We should recognise that subsidy of social enterprises that are performing useful social functions is not the same as grants or funding. Virgin Trains gets a huge subsidy from the state for providing a public service in the form of transport. If we are talking about social enterprises, we should be talking about subsidising social enterprises for the services that they deliver to wider society, not merely about funding.
Like Patrick Harvie, I am a former employee of the voluntary sector. I share the concerns about three-year funding and about the reinvention that is required to meet the need to be innovative at the end of the three-year funding period. We must recognise that there can be very unhealthy relationships between voluntary sector organisations and the state that funds them. All too often, sustainability simply means that a voluntary sector organisation must follow the lead given by the state as grant-giver. If they can, voluntary sector organisations should look to grow into social enterprises in the way that the deputy minister described in her opening speech and to be broader and more sustainable. We should recognise that there will always be a role for purely not-for-profit organisations, but there must also be encouragement for voluntary sector organisations to move into revenue-raising activities and social enterprises if they can. That would be a much healthier model.
We ought to talk about what can be done. Co-ops have been mentioned, and they provide an attractive model for many voluntary organisations that are looking to become social enterprises. Marilyn Livingstone quite rightly recognised the advantage of that model, which has a long history and, thanks to the co-operative development agency, a bright future.
We should recognise that social enterprises should have, as Patrick Harvie said, a strategic focus within the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department. That will be important in developing the enterprise role of social enterprises. Chambers of commerce, local enterprise companies and universities and colleges should be encouraged to promote social enterprises. That is where, in response to the SNP comments, we can look at what is happening in the DTI. We can examine the role of the social enterprise unit within the small business service at the DTI and we can learn from what it is doing, and from what the phoenix development fund is doing. I do not think that we should be shy about looking at models from England and Wales if those models are successful and could be of benefit to us. That is why I am disappointed that the SNP seems unable to support the Green amendment, which simply encourages us to look at the models that are proving successful in other parts of the United Kingdom.
There is a huge challenge for the social enterprise sector. It has huge benefits and huge potential advantages to society, but it has to accept that there are winners and losers and that there are mergers and closures in enterprise. Meeting that challenge of being real enterprises with a social mission can bring huge benefits to Scotland, and that is why I am pleased that there has been support for our amendment, which I hope will start to take that process forward.
There have been a number of strands in this interesting debate. The voluntary sector strand and the social economy strand have shot off in slightly different directions during the debate, but we keep returning to the linkages between them. I was interested to hear Mark Ballard, in closing for the Greens, talking about the delivery of public services. It struck me that one thing that happens in the voluntary sector and social economy is not so much the delivery of existing public services as the identification of new public services and new needs that fall between the cracks of what the public sector is able to deliver. That is one of the most important aspects of the debate. Des McNulty talked about the Wise Group, which falls very much into that category, as do housing associations and a number of other organisations of that sort.
The previous debates that we have had on similar subjects, of which there have been many, do not lessen in the slightest the importance of debating the social economy and the voluntary sector, because of their importance to the fabric of our society. To imagine Scotland without the voluntary sector and the social economy would be to envisage something that is very much poorer than the current set-up. There would be no sports clubs, drug projects, scouts or guides. There would be no parent-teacher associations, Royal National Institute of the Blind, CABx, housing associations, Remploy or Wise Group. The list is endless. There are 50,000 such organisations. I think that the figure has gone up since the Parliament was established, because I am sure that the figure that we used to cite back in 1999 was 44,000. Scotland would be immeasurably poorer without those organisations.
We heard about the number of adult volunteers, the number of paid staff—another growth area—and the amount of money that is raised: about £2.6 billion a year. I sometimes wonder who counts up some of those figures. It must be Stewart Stevenson or his like, who lurk in the background in a statistics department in the voluntary sector. The Scottish Executive has a good record for supporting capacity building in the social economy and the voluntary sector generally. Obviously, the establishment of the co-operative development agency, futurebuilders Scotland and the national youth voluntary programme will all play their part.
Many problems arise at the local level. I will address one or two key points that have been touched on by other members. First, core funding is central—there are no two ways about that. It is an on-going thorn in the side, but the issue is often at local council rather than ministerial level. We must find ways to ensure that, as a minimum, three-year guaranteed rolling core funding is made available to many more organisations. Frankly, some councils are significantly better than others at doing that, but there is significantly less progress than there ought to be. There is sometimes an empire-building mentality that causes councils to say that a particular thing must be done in the public sector and that the voluntary sector will not be allowed an opportunity. That affects funding decisions.
I share Robert Brown's concern and he makes a very good point.
I was also concerned to read today a press release from the SCVO about research by the University of Strathclyde. The research found that councils were insisting on cuts to conditions and pay among the employees of voluntary sector service providers, so that the council's costs would be kept down when they bought in the services. Does Robert Brown share that concern? Annie Gunner states:
"When providers complain about this, they are told that they are in a market, and this is how markets work, which I would have thought is a scarcely credible position for a government committed to social justice."
We should consider that issue.
I share Linda Fabiani's concern. That has been an issue throughout the history of the voluntary sector. In fairness, the point is now more widely recognised than it was, but it is still an issue.
Fluctuating funding is an issue. We have talked about urban aid and the need that councils have had to make up the loss of funding when urban aid funding, lottery funding or whatever stops. When I visited some Glasgow schools with the Education Committee I came across the issue of European structural funding that supported school-college links. That is not in the voluntary sector, but the same point arises. We must be careful to ensure that there are sustainable sources of funding.
To a degree, I challenge the idea that every voluntary sector and social economy project must move towards self-sustainability. Many projects cannot do that and we must recognise the need for core funding. Some very good projects, such as the Castlemilk wind farm project, can become self-sustaining. That project could exist in the social economy once it gets off the ground and it ought to produce a substantial input of voluntary sector seedcorn funding that will help other organisations in the area. If that model is successful it should be built on, but the theory that voluntary sector projects can always be made self-sustaining is fallacious. There is a need for independent funding.
Will the member give way?
No. I cannot take any more interventions.
It is not easy to provide sustainable and effective independent funding. The Big Lottery Fund, which has been mentioned, is probably the nearest thing to an independent voluntary sector funder in Scotland. It should be left as free as it can be to do that effectively.
There is a need to recognise the burdens that new regulation places on the voluntary sector. I agree with Donald Gorrie's point, which was wrongly understood by the chamber. Whether it be houses in multiple occupation regulations that affect Abbeyfield, the requirements of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care or the pressures of the disclosure regime, they all impose a burden of compliance and training on organisations. That burden is neither adequately recognised nor resourced.
We must either re-examine the regulations and consider whether they are necessary in their present form or identify and properly fund their training and administration implications. It is short-sighted to talk about the importance of giving young people opportunities to take part in interesting activities and outdoor events while imposing new, unfunded burdens on the voluntary organisations that do the business on the ground. There is a suggestion that 15 per cent administration costs should be taken on board throughout the voluntary sector, but there should be particular support for training in that context.
Such issues must be tackled effectively in partnership with the voluntary sector and through the strategic funding review. I hope that the minister will take on board the point that was made about COSLA's slight conflict of interest in relation to the review. The proposed approach is not necessarily the right way forward. I support the motion.
To the annoyance of Robert Brown, I will mention a statistic that I often cite. Service delivery by the voluntary and social enterprise sector is equivalent to 25 per cent of the Scottish Executive's budget. We must explain figures of such magnitude simply, so that people can understand the value of the sector.
John Farquhar Munro made an important observation when he said that people volunteer because they desire to serve their communities. That is a major principle of the matter that we are considering.
The minister welcomed the diversity of the sector. She talked about its sustainability and admired its determination. She also said that she acknowledged that the sector should set its own agenda and have its own focus and ways of doing things. She must therefore agree with the Conservatives in wanting light government, minimal, simplified regulation and simplified processes for applying for funding. The complexity of the different funding streams that are currently available is such that people almost have to be experts in finding funding before they can do anything. The minister talked about futurebuilders and projects that will involve partnerships with the banks. It is excellent that the private sector is involved, but people will need help in applying for grants and in running their audit and management systems to the appropriate standards.
Linda Fabiani talked about social enterprise and reinvesting profit and I welcome her comments about wealth creation. Of course, an enterprise-friendly environment would benefit Scotland's social enterprise sector as well as the commercial sector. If we agree on that, we might get the benefits, because the increasing costs on businesses—water charges, rates and so on—are a huge burden. There are other burdens—
Will the member give way?
I was just going to say that we support the Scottish National Party amendment. It is common sense that an organisation that delivers a service on behalf of a council, a health board or the Executive should receive the support that the amendment calls for, as long as it is performing to the right standard.
Does the member agree that organisations that put money aside because they want to build capacity, buy equipment or increase their asset base are disadvantaged, because local authorities often cut the funding of organisations that have money in the bank, which means that there is no incentive to be prudent?
Yes. I witnessed that happening when I was in local government.
Many good points were made in the debate. My colleague Mary Scanlon talked about the personal benefits of volunteering. She was one of the first members to mention funding problems and the effort that is required by organisations to keep grinding on if they are to survive until they receive the next bit of support. She was also the first of many members to talk about the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care's charges. I have talked to people at the care commission who are frankly embarrassed by the charges that they are obliged to levy because of how the commission was set up. The sooner the care commission's costing and funding package is reviewed the better, because the current system offers a sledgehammer to crack a nut and prevents people performing their duties.
Mary Scanlon talked about helping individuals or communities to help themselves and she was not the only one to make that point. The objective should be to give people back their pride in their community.
John Scott talked about community councils. I was the founding chairman of the association of community councils. There were good community councils and there were poor ones; it depended on the quality of the volunteers and on the treatment they received from their local authorities. That treatment could often be a very negative influence.
Robert Brown made an important point when he said that councils appeared to be taking things in-house. That appears to be the view of the voluntary sector itself.
I agree with some of what Donald Gorrie said. Why can councils not procure services from the social sector? What about contracting? Many people are going on and on about Disclosure Scotland. The timescales are getting better but they are not exactly brilliant. That is a huge hurdle. I accept the need for a system of review because we have to have safe communities, but we really do not need the present heavy-handed approach that means that if someone works for three different organisations they need three clearances. That is overkill.
Because they are strapped for cash, health boards are closing down their funding for many care charities.
In conclusion, I repeat that we need less interference from the Executive. We need lighter government. We have to simplify the number of funds and reduce the number of hoops that people have to go through. Otherwise, too many people will just give up.
I know that I am not always the best behaved member in this chamber, as the frowns from the Presiding Officers often tell me. However, and even though I may be making a noose for my own neck, I detect a trend. Increasingly, members who have taken part in a debate are not present for the wind-up speeches. I appreciate that members may have other commitments, but their absence can be inappropriate when those winding up answer points that they have raised or perhaps even compliment them.
Compliment me?
Not yet, minister, although I think that there will be tiny compliments later.
I should say that I am a member of a credit union—although that is not in the register of members' interests—and I worked for a long time as a volunteer solicitor at a citizens advice bureau. Like everybody else here, I have done bits and pieces.
I welcome the minister's initial comment that we should not be patronising about the voluntary sector. If all we do is talk about motherhood and apple pie, we do a huge disservice to the voluntary sector. The sector is dynamic and robust, and it deals with difficult issues—sometimes too difficult.
It was also appropriate that the minister celebrated diversity—the volunteers range from individuals to mega-organisations. She also touched on the provision of vital services. Our amendment relates to that, and I will come to it later. She also touched on homelessness. One thinks of the work of Shelter Scotland to address policy on homelessness and one thinks of "The Big Issue", which has taken the stigma away from being homeless. "The Big Issue" is a major and in-your-face operation; people coming out of supermarkets meet people who are homeless and can buy a magazine that is worth buying.
Shelter and "The Big Issue" are major contributors but there are also small ones. I thought that John Scott was reading out the charities in his constituency from "Yellow Pages". As he spoke, I could see press releases growing like fruit on the trees—but why not, John, why not?
I am going to talk about Homestart, which does not operate in my constituency; I just happened to meet some people who work for it. The organisation has a £25,000 budget for different areas. Using that money, it supports families in difficulty that have children under five years of age.
Will the member take an intervention?
He fell for the bait, and no wonder.
Will the member be putting out a press release about her speech?
Absolutely not.
I was talking about Homestart, which spends only about £5,000 on each family. We could consider the example of a mother who has post-natal depression and is not coping. With that little bit of money, the family can stay together and the children can avoid health problems. The children will also not stop attending school.
Stewart Stevenson pointed out that the benefit of the voluntary sector is not always monetary but can be something else that is hard to weigh.
Linda Fabiani was right to say that social enterprises emerged from the voluntary sector. She was also correct that there are too many funding strands for voluntary sector organisations, which is a point with which many members have sympathy—I sense that there could be support for the SNP amendment, although it will not get it, except from the Conservatives and perhaps from the Greens. Funding does not always begin and end at the same time, so an organisation might have three-year funding from one stream and another that starts at a different time, which creates difficulties.
That brings me to Stewart Stevenson's mixed metaphor, which was the glory of the debate and a joy to hear. He talked about using scaffolding to allow us to navigate. I wonder how we would get on, navigating the seas of life with scaffolding round us, but there we are—that shows that I was listening to his speech. The serious issue is the importance of continuity of funding. The issue is not simply about providing a blank cheque. Our amendment mentions
"measures to ensure continued and stable core funding",
which of course would be put in place after discussion with the voluntary sector. That could mean audit trails or assessment, but surely once a project is established it should not have to fight for funding from the various sources, such as the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland and lottery funding. I agree with Stewart Stevenson—in fact, I think that it is party policy—that we should have a national lottery fund. I regard the lottery as a voluntary tax on the poor that is then applied to people who are poor.
Mary Scanlon's points about the citizens advice bureaux were correct—they almost have the role of solicitors and they have concerns about their funding. I do not always enjoy Donald Gorrie's speeches, but I enjoyed today's. I agree with him about local control, fairness in council procurement and the need for sustained core funding. We saw that need in the Justice 1 Committee when we considered throughcare provision for prisoners. I concur completely with Donald Gorrie's points on disclosure. The present system uses a hammer to crack a walnut, or whatever the metaphor is—I am drowning in metaphors—and gives rise to unfairness. If somebody has a complaint made against them and the police make a charge but the case is not prosecuted, the matter remains on the disclosure form, even though there has been no test of the evidence and the person has had no chance to clear their name.
I understood Jim Mather's speech, although I do not always understand his language. He had a delicious phrase about navigating financial and compliance issues. We are doing a lot of navigating in this part of the chamber—perhaps Jim will need some of Stewart Stevenson's scaffolding. Jim Mather also talked about a local fulfilment vehicle, which I think means a charity or a voluntary organisation. I do not mean to be spiteful; he is really good on such matters and he taught economics, but sometimes I am at a loss. He made a serious point about the role of volunteers in making areas more attractive to investors and businesses and the knock-on effect of that. I agree with Karen Whitefield that volunteering is good for the volunteer—that is self-evident—and John Farquhar Munro was right about the increased costs for people who volunteer in rural areas.
We will vote against the Green amendment, because the suggestion is too complicated and the issue is already too complicated—it is a quagmire. We thank the Conservatives for their support for our amendment. As the Executive will accept the Green amendment, we have no choice but to abstain on the Executive's motion. The issue of core funding is essential because if small, medium and large voluntary sector organisations stopped tomorrow, basic services would also stop.
The strength and value of the voluntary sector have been referred to many times in the debate, but I repeat and reinforce that point. I acknowledge the extraordinary breadth and depth of the work of the voluntary sector and pay tribute to the thousands of paid workers and volunteers who make up that growing third sector, which is a major service provider and agent of change that contributes to economic and social objectives. I particularly value the sector's independence, its frequent emphasis on community action from the ground up and the many ways in which it provides help and support to those who are in need.
I was conscious of that in my previous portfolio. For example, I was aware of various organisations that improve mental health services throughout Scotland—such as the Scottish Association for Mental Health—the food co-ops to which Elaine Smith referred and the many patient support groups for particular illnesses. It is the same, of course, in my new portfolio. For example, I am conscious of groups that are working around domestic abuse, such as Scottish Women's Aid. I am also conscious of credit unions and organisations that are working on local regeneration. Such groups are fashioning programmes of improvement from below, and are working with people to help them take greater control, which is supported by Donald Gorrie, Christine Grahame and others.
We are already committed to supporting the voluntary sector in a number of ways, by providing funding, by improving regulatory frameworks and by setting out our strategy to increase the quality and quantity of volunteers. We shall now build on the considerable progress that we have made.
Funding has been a major issue in this debate, and was emphasised by Christine Grahame in her wind-up speech and by Donald Gorrie and others earlier in the debate. Scottish Executive funding for the voluntary sector is substantial. Our financial commitment to the sector now stands at more than £400 million each year. Even so, funding is a persistent concern. Too often, funding is awarded on a short-term basis, with the result that organisations spend a large proportion of their time chasing new funding sources and reapplying for grants. That can mean stopping and starting projects on the ground, which can lead to the disruption of services that often support the most vulnerable in our communities.
We want to make it easier for voluntary organisations to do what they do best by focusing on service delivery. The Executive is committed to providing a rolling programme of three-year funding. We want continuity of funding for outcomes, so that good projects on the ground are not threatened with closure because of short-term funding crises. To that end, I am delighted that with our partners, SCVO and COSLA, we have managed to agree some principles for taking forward the strategic funding review. Through that, we aim to move towards an investment culture in which funding decisions are made on the basis of working together to deliver the best services for the people of Scotland.
SCVO, COSLA and the Executive are committed to taking forward those principles, including a move towards full cost recovery. Some issues relating to the impact that full cost recovery might have on the voluntary and public sectors are still to be resolved, but the principle of full cost recovery is widely accepted. We need to work on how we will apply that principle across Government, local authorities and the voluntary sector. We will shortly undertake a piece of work to examine the benefits, risks and costs of implementing full cost recovery, and to inform a realistic and manageable way forward.
Good progress on funding has been made in the strategic funding review, but the language of the SNP tries to take us backwards. The current distinction between core and project funding is regarded by all the partners, including SCVO, as unhelpful. It can lead to organisations artificially splitting costs between those two categories, and can lead to a focus on processes and outputs, as opposed to the valuable outcomes that we are all working towards. This is all about continuity of funding for outcomes, which is why we will not support the SNP amendment.
I welcome what the minister says about the measures that he is taking, but I fundamentally disagree that core funding is a move backwards. I suggest that the vast majority of volunteers who are trying to run small organisations on shoestrings would agree with the SNP position.
That is not the position that has been adopted by the partners in the strategic funding review. The important issue is continuity of funding. We are trying to get beyond the distinction between core and project funding, and the SCVO accepts that.
Linda Fabiani asked about how the futurebuilders programme is progressing. It is now up and running and starting to issue a considerable number of investments that will make a difference. It has been a popular programme. She also asked whether grant-aided time-limited funding was adequate in itself. Of course more must be done. On Monday I visited Almond Valley Heritage Trust in Livingston, where I launched social investment Scotland's new £6 million loan fund to complement futurebuilders—£3 million was provided by the Executive, which was matched with a further £3 million from the Bank of Scotland. The new fund, called futurebuilders plus, will provide loan finance to support the activities of social economy organisations that are seeking assistance from the futurebuilders Scotland investment fund, and will enable the continuation of the lending activities undertaken by social investment Scotland.
Jim Mather and Mary Scanlon mentioned specific social economy organisations with approval.
Will the minister give way?
I have no time, I am sorry.
Mary Scanlon mentioned the Shetland Soap Company, which has developed with futurebuilders support. I visited a similar soap company in Edinburgh recently and met people with mental health problems who are doing real jobs for a high-quality commercial soap production enterprise. That is a working model of opportunity, equality and fairness for everyone who lives in Scotland and it is what our investment in the social economy is all about.
I say to Elaine Smith that an announcement about the co-operative development agency will be made very soon.
Mary Scanlon also mentioned the compact. We have recently published a revised and strengthened compact to reinforce the relationship between the Executive and the voluntary sector. Within the compact, the independence of the voluntary sector is celebrated and I believe that its responsibility to work with us and challenge us contributes to the effective and efficient development and delivery of policy across all policy areas. I am pleased that local compacts are developing. For example, Edinburgh has an innovative compact that shows commitment to increasing the role of the voluntary sector in policy development, decision making and service delivery at all levels in the city.
There are a number of other points to which I want to respond, but first I will deal with the substantive issue of volunteers, about which Marilyn Livingstone and Karen Whitefield—among others—talked eloquently. Scotland needs a steady supply of volunteers and organisations that have the skills to get the best out of them. Our volunteering strategy shows how we can get such a supply and we provide the innovation, commitment and resources to back it up. We have relaunched the millennium volunteer programme, which will receive more than £1.6 million over the next two years. We are stimulating the supply of volunteers through project Scotland, which the Scottish Executive will provide with more than £11 million of funding over the next three years. On Tuesday, the First Minister launched project Scotland and opened it for business. Getting the programme off the ground has been a truly remarkable achievement. The Russell committee report, which was published in March, concluded that more needed to be done to engage young people and get them involved. It identified a range of barriers to volunteering, including tax and benefits concerns, which we are taking up with the Department for Work and Pensions.
Project Scotland is addressing the other issues and delivering on the ground something concrete that the young people of Scotland today can regard as an important opportunity. It is already acting as a model for full-time youth volunteering elsewhere in the UK. Over the next year, we will think about how to develop project Scotland, especially its international element. Investment in such programmes reaps benefits, not just in the form of an improved supply of volunteers for voluntary organisations, but in the form of the life-changing impact that volunteering can have on volunteers.
I think that I have time for a few more replies before I wind up. Mary Scanlon mentioned the money that was spent on a building in Inverness, but that building is not just for the SCVO—it will house a range of voluntary organisations. I understand that one of the organisations that is in discussions with the SCVO is the Inverness CAB, to which Mary Scanlon referred. A broad range of community organisations will benefit from the new building. Mary Scanlon suggested that money was being spent on that building rather than on money advice, but I remind her of the millions of pounds that are being spent on money advice and of the forthcoming financial action plan, which will inject another £5 million into money advice and related services, such as those that are provided by credit unions.
Donald Gorrie made some points about the operation of the disclosure system, but I agree with Karen Whitefield that the safety of Scottish children is paramount and that we need to protect our volunteers. I acknowledge that there have been difficulties with the system and, for that reason, we are working closely with Disclosure Scotland to improve its operational efficiency.
I had better move to my conclusion. We have covered a great deal of ground in the debate and I want to restate the importance that we attach to working with the sector to develop further our vision for the future. I am looking forward to launching the new process of engagement between the Executive and the sector at our away day in Edinburgh next Wednesday. I want us to explore new areas of growth and potential within the voluntary sector. We will consider the continued increase in the number and diversity of ways in which individuals can contribute to society, whether through charities, social enterprises, co-operatives, self-help groups or campaigning organisations. We will think about new ways for voluntary organisations to deliver public services that add value to those that are provided by the state. Other issues that we will explore are the continued growth in community-focused organisations, which allow us to come together to take part in arts and sports, to learn new skills, to support our children and young people and to care for our older people, and the value and potential of the sector's policy development and campaigning role, through which it challenges us all to do things better.
The voluntary sector is playing a growing role in the big issues of tackling poverty, fighting crime and improving health. Voluntary organisations that are grounded in local communities are uniquely well placed to create the social capital that Karen Whitefield spoke about at great length and with great insight. The Executive is therefore strongly committed to supporting a growing third sector that is valued for its ingenuity, independence and for the vital role that it plays in building social capital, delivering services and supporting those in need.
I commend the motion in my name, along with the Green amendment.