Voluntary Sector
We proceed now to the debate on motion SM1-165, on the voluntary sector, in the name of Jackie Baillie. Because of the large number of members who want to be called in this debate, speeches from back benchers will be limited to four minutes.
In my speech, I want to draw attention to the importance of the voluntary sector in Scotland today, to highlight some important measures that we have already put in place to help strengthen its role and to outline where we intend to go from here.
The voluntary sector has a long and proud tradition in Scotland. More than 50 per cent of the adult population has had some involvement in volunteering, and 25 per cent of the population volunteers on a regular basis. That is a powerful indicator of the Scottish people's commitment to helping others in their communities.
There are more than 44,000 voluntary organisations, 27,000 of which are registered as charities. The sector has an annual income of more than £1.8 billion a year, which represents 3 per cent of Scotland's gross domestic product. It provides 100,000 jobs—4.5 per cent of the total number of jobs in Scotland. However, the spread across Scotland is not even, and we are examining that. Rural areas have the highest number of voluntary organisations per head of population, whereas the older industrial areas have the lowest.
The role of voluntary groups and volunteers has enormous potential to help us to achieve our shared goals of promoting community development and active citizenship. Our challenge is to build on that foundation.
I want to say a little about the policy context in which we are working. Our programme for government, "Making it work together", recognises the key role that the voluntary sector plays in tackling poverty and in regenerating communities. However, the sector's importance goes far wider than that. With their diversity and strong base in disadvantaged communities, voluntary organisations are well placed to support a whole range of polices aimed at improving the lives and opportunities of ordinary people in Scotland.
Two principal policy aims will drive our agenda. First, recognising and acknowledging the role of the sector in the implementation of policy objectives, the Scottish Executive will develop a productive relationship that accurately reflects the needs of both parties. Secondly, strategic decisions on support for the sector will focus on the fact that volunteering and the voluntary sector are at the heart of community development—one of our key emerging priorities.
The specific objectives that flow from those aims are to strengthen the infrastructure of the voluntary sector and of volunteering as a priority, and to develop the existing role of the voluntary sector across a wide range of the Executive's policy areas, including community care, child care services, housing, employment, criminal justice, rural policy and health. We will also maximise the part that the voluntary sector plays in our social inclusion and regeneration policies.
We have already taken specific steps to support our commitment to the voluntary sector. First, we have committed ourselves to promoting a new way of working. There are already close links between Government and the voluntary sector, but we mean to build them into a close working partnership between the two sectors for the future. The foundations have already been laid with the Scottish compact, which was launched in October 1998. The Scottish Executive wants to give that a fresh impetus; later in the autumn, we will ask the Parliament to endorse the compact so that we can send out a clear signal of its commitment to work in partnership with the voluntary sector.
Secondly, within Government we are giving a much clearer direction to our work with the voluntary sector. We have made important changes in the way in which the Scottish Executive is structured. The voluntary issues unit will in future have a far more strategic role. It has been located in the centre of the Administration, where it is well placed to reach right across the Executive. It will work to raise the profile of voluntary issues in discussions about Scottish policy. That is what the voluntary sector has campaigned for, and that is what we have delivered. The Executive has acknowledged the crucial role that the sector can play in both the development of policy and the delivery of responsive services.
Thirdly, we mean to create a stable infrastructure to support voluntary and community action at all levels. The Government has committed £1 million to support the infrastructure for volunteering and we are creating a network of local volunteering development agencies. More than 92 per cent of the population of Scotland already has access to a local volunteering development agency and we have provided the funds to create an agency in each local authority area by March 2000.
We are also addressing the problems of the uneven spread of the voluntary sector across Scotland, which I mentioned. Last month, we
announced a review of councils for voluntary service. That review will consider how the network might contribute to building the voluntary capacity throughout Scotland in relation to the priorities that I outlined.
I know that funding is a continuing concern for many voluntary groups. The Scottish Executive provides a substantial amount—more than £283 million—to national voluntary organisations and to the infrastructure bodies that support local groups. In that way, the Government complements the work being done at community level by local authorities.
The Executive recognises the need not only to provide the resources but to have a funding strategy in place that promotes future stability. It is for that reason that we intend to work with the voluntary sector to prepare a code of good practice on funding. That will form the basis of a more strategic and co-ordinated approach within the Executive.
Stability of funding is crucial to the sector. I welcome the Executive's commitment to three- year funding. The problem is—as I said in the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee last week—that we need a similar commitment from local government and health boards.
I can assure the member that we will be working closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to deliver that. A number of councils lead the way in good practice.
The Executive will also work with other major funders, such as local councils and the National Lottery Charities Board, to provide a more stable funding framework. We are committed to undertaking a comprehensive review of charity law to reform existing legislation and create a framework that is fit for the 21st century.
We have a number of key strands already in place to support our commitment to the sector. In addition, I have recently made announcements aimed at boosting two new programmes for the voluntary sector. The first is called the giving age. In Scotland, the initiative is being taken forward by the Scottish giving age working group which is preparing a strategy that will be published next year. The strategy will have community empowerment as both its underlying philosophy and its ultimate aim. I have announced more than £250,000 of new money to support that initiative.
The second new programme is millennium volunteers, which sets out to encourage young people aged between 16 and 25 to develop their personal skills in a way that will result in lasting benefit to their communities. I was pleased to announce more than £400,000 of grants for new millennium volunteer projects earlier this month.
I said that we wanted the voluntary sector to have a central role in our policies for community action and active citizenship. Both those new programmes promote that aim.
I believe that, in Scotland, policy makers are at last recognising the key role that communities can and should play in shaping the delivery of their services and in building community capacity to determine and tackle local priorities.
Many policies have adopted a much clearer focus on communities. They include: social inclusion partnerships; the national strategy of tenant participation; communities that care; initiatives at the edge; and the "Improving Health" white paper. The list is endless and all the policies have active communities at their core. The initiatives demonstrate the potential of the voluntary sector and volunteering in its widest sense to boost efforts to put active citizenship at the centre of policy development.
In considering the role of the voluntary sector, we too often assume that its contribution is limited to the sphere of social policy. The evidence is growing that the sector makes a significant impact in the economic field, too. I have already referred to the 100,000 jobs that the third sector provides, but I have not yet said that the sector enjoys the fastest job growth of any sector in the European economy. Work done in the Highlands and Islands suggests that the social economy accounts for an annual income of more than £200 million. That represents a significant contribution to sustaining the economic life of those rural communities.
A 1997 study into employment in lowland Scotland found that total paid employment in the sector was roughly equal to that in the Scottish electronics industry, one of our main growth sectors. There are more social economy jobs in Drumchapel than there is employment provided by the Great Western retail park. When we look at the future potential of the voluntary sector, it is crucial that we recognise and support the role that it increasingly plays in the social economy as a direct contributor to our economic prosperity.
The Scottish Executive has made it clear that it values the role of the voluntary sector. We will bring forward the compact to promote partnership working, give a commitment to a fairer funding framework and guarantee the sector's independence to speak out. We will build a stronger infrastructure and involve it directly in policy making. In the past, the relationship between Government and the sector has often been unequal but, with these initiatives, we are redefining that relationship.
The Scottish Executive is firmly committed to working in partnership with the voluntary sector. I
look forward to working with the Parliament and with the Social Inclusion, Housing and the Voluntary Sector Committee to promote policies designed to help voluntary organisations flourish in Scotland in the 21st century.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the Scottish Executive's recognition of the important role of the voluntary sector in Scottish society through the contribution it makes to economic prosperity, promoting social inclusion and encouraging active citizenship; endorses the Executive's commitment to create a stable infrastructure in which the voluntary sector can flourish, and welcomes the firm intention to work in partnership with the sector in delivering the Programme for Government.
On behalf of the Parliament, I thank and welcome the many volunteers and representatives of voluntary organisations who have come to the chamber today to listen to the debate. I also thank the Deputy Minister for Communities for her statement. The Scottish National party will support the motion, although there are several things that we would like to point out. We do not support entirely the programme for government, but otherwise we fully support the motion. I am glad to hear that an SNP proposal of nearly 10 years' standing, on three-year accounting and funding, has been adopted by the Executive.
The role of the voluntary sector in Scotland involves not just day-to-day work on the ground, providing assistance, care, community work, education, housing and social assistance. It is at the mercy of the consequences of Government decision making and economic conditions. As a result, the sector has had to respond quickly to many changes, and has developed policy to adapt to changes in circumstances in Scotland. That policy development role has been undervalued by politicians in the past. I thank the Executive for the value that it places on the voluntary sector, but it is vital that those at the coal face of the voluntary organisations—indeed those in the gallery today— are given the opportunity to shape Government policy at its heart, rather than simply react to it.
Jackie Baillie referred to the compact. I would like to talk about that a little, having spoken to a large number of voluntary organisations over the past few months. Are the benefits of the compact realistic? It will be introduced as a measure to create a flow of information from Government to the voluntary sector and vice versa. That looks good on paper—the compact is bound in a glossy cover—but, according to my consultations, the general feeling is that the sector has extensive reservations about its content.
Will setting up the compact have a significant and positive impact on the future of the voluntary sector? Will the Government respond to the issues instigated by the voluntary sector? Will it act on those issues and not simply become an ear to which the voluntary sector can voice its opinions and concerns? Let us hope so. More important, how will those channels of communication be set up? What will the formal structures be? The compact contains some broad and sweeping gestures about its role and function, but how will it take the relationship between Government and the voluntary sector to a higher plane?
The voluntary sector has some specific concerns. What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the Government is carrying out the commitments that are made in the compact? Who will monitor the compact? Who will open up the channels of communication for users? That is an excellent idea, but how will the exercise be orchestrated, who will pay for it and, more important, what are the costs involved? Will the compact be reviewed? Very importantly, what will be the time scale for reviews?
Who will benefit from the compact? Will it be the users—the voluntary organisations—or the Executive, to enable it to hold up a document as a token offering to the voluntary sector?
Will the member give way?
No, certainly not.
From what the deputy minister said today, it appears that the Government intends to address the needs of this valuable and vital sector.
As has been said, the voluntary sector had an income of £1.8 billion last year. Some of that came from trading, rents and investment and there was 26 per cent from the public sector, 22 per cent from donations and 7 per cent from the lottery— which is really a donation through the national lottery.
The voluntary sector desperately needs continuity of funding. I welcome the deputy minister's suggestions on three-year funding and accounting. I also support what Keith Raffan said: we have to formalise that with both central and local government.
There are other squeezes on the voluntary sector. Central Government provides support in the form of grants from other public bodies. In Scotland under the current Administration, support from organisations such as Scottish Homes and the enterprise companies dropped from £313 million in 1996-97 to £279 million in 1997-98— admittedly that is the last year for which figures are available.
I have two questions, as Mr Quinan refused me the opportunity to ask a question earlier. First, the compact is endorsed by
the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Volunteer Development Scotland and the Council of Voluntary Service Scotland, which represent the main infrastructure bodies of Scotland. Should we not trust them to guard the sector's independence and interests? I regret that he attacks a fundamental document, which has been jointly agreed.
Secondly, will Mr Quinan comment on why the returns to the Scottish Executive of Angus Council, which is an SNP-controlled local authority, show £2.5 million of support to the voluntary sector in 1996-97, but £54,000 in 1997-98?
Excellent.
The answer to the second question is straightforward: that drop was caused by cuts in local government created by central Tory-Labour Government.
And the SNP's priorities.
Jackie Baillie misunderstands what I am saying. I said at the beginning that we support what she said. I support the compact, but am merely pointing out certain elements about which some of the organisations that she has just named have concerns. There is not a blanket agreement to the compact at this stage, as she well knows.
Indeed, I do not.
Fair enough.
Was that an intervention?
You did not accept it, Mr Quinan, so it was not.
I just wondered.
Please begin to wind up.
Let us consider the burden that has been placed on the third sector as a result of the policies of this Government and of the previous Government. Policies such as the new deal and changes in social work practice build in an assumption that the voluntary sector will be called on for part of policy implementation. That involvement and partnership are welcome, but the flow must be two-way and the third sector should have a say in policy development. As a consequence of that assumption, there has been a growing pressure on the work load of voluntary organisations.
The cut in council budgets, to which the deputy minister referred, and the consequent cuts especially in social work services and housing, have left holes that the voluntary sector has been forced to fill. That further increases the work load of voluntary organisations. It highlights the need for third-sector involvement at the heart of policy making.
One means of doing that is through the civic forum, to which several of my colleagues will refer later in the debate. We should take on board the view of the consultative steering group report, that we should make use of the civic forum at the centre of government.
We thank the Executive for the move to three- year accounting, which will ensure stability and sustainability for most of the voluntary sector. However, the cost of repeated recruitment, the associated advertising and short-term contracts is far too expensive for any business and far too expensive for the third sector.
Having recognised the vital work done by the voluntary sector, particularly in regard to the alleviation of poverty, the SNP believes that the Parliament should strengthen, or make statutory, the links between local government and the third sector. Let us recognise the wealth of experience and expertise available from voluntary organisations and give them a voice at the heart of government.
We should support and expand the work of the credit unions. Let us consider legislation, here or indeed at Westminster, to create a more level playing field in which the credit union movement could flourish.
I thank the Executive for the motion; the SNP is glad to support it.
The Conservatives support today's motion almost entirely. We congratulate the minister on her comments—we identify with and support most of them. It is perhaps strange for a Tory to stand up and be so enthusiastic, but we should all be enthusiastic about and proud of the voluntary sector in Scotland.
I have a small reservation about the wording of the motion, with respect to creating
"a stable infrastructure in which the voluntary sector can flourish".
Right throughout the 1990s and going back to the 1980s, the voluntary sector has flourished. It has grown and has made an important contribution to Scottish society. The strength of the voluntary sector has not emerged in the past two years—it has been built up over many years. If the minister is saying that the Executive will ensure that that continues and that the voluntary sector will be enhanced, that is another reason for us to support the motion.
The voluntary sector produces a newspaper called "The Third Force"—and the voluntary sector really is the third force: there is the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector. It is a major economic force in Scotland, which spends a lot of money, much of which comes from Government. However, the income breakdown shows that the voluntary sector has considerable earnings. I think that Mr Quinan suggested that 30 per cent of the sector's funding comes from the national lottery; my understanding is that some 7 or 8 per cent comes from the national lottery, usually through capital grants. However, 30 per cent of the funding comes from cash raised by the voluntary sector for itself.
One of the great values of the voluntary sector— as the minister mentioned—is the number of people employed by it. However, for every person who is employed by the sector, there are least three or four others who give their time and effort voluntarily. In many areas, there would be great holes in public sector facilities were the voluntary sector to drop out. Hospital shops and many of the services provided in hospitals, meals on wheels, parent-teacher associations and school boards are run by people who want to work in the community, giving their time and effort freely.
Sports in Scotland would die almost entirely without the efforts of volunteers. I regret that the lottery—and at times the Government—does not give a little more recognition to the support that is needed for sporting bodies. If the minister can find some extra cash around millennium time, I can think of one or two good projects in Ayr. In particular, I would like to put in a good word for Caledonian Football Club, whose buildings are falling into disrepair. Despite that, the club caters for 400 to 500 youngsters on a week-to-week basis. The club does that without any financial support whatever. I would like to think that the minister's compact could assist such an organisation.
Why do volunteers get involved? They get involved because they are interested in their community. They want to achieve things for their families, for their neighbours and for their community. We should encourage that. Volunteers, as we all know, gain much satisfaction from what they do. Much of their reward comes from seeing developments that would not have been thought about and could not have come to fruition without their efforts.
I have some marginal reservations about the Scottish compact. Voluntary organisations must be truly independent, but the charge might be laid that the compact contains some Government interference in the voluntary sector.
I would like to make an intervention that I hope will be helpful and give Mr
Gallie some reassurance. The compact starts by guaranteeing the independence of the voluntary sector, and the compact will be in place only when both sectors choose to work together.
I recognise that that is the aim, and I suggested that that could give the impression of greater Government involvement. We do not want that to happen, because another major source of funding for voluntary organisations is through donations. If people who wanted to give money to voluntary organisations felt that there was a Government link, that might cause them to pull back. Neil McIntosh, before the previous election, stressed the importance of the voluntary sector maintaining its independence. I accept the deputy minister's words that the Government has no intention to dominate the voluntary sector.
Before the election, people in the voluntary sector had great expectations for this Parliament. They believed that, through the Parliament, their voices would be heard in a more significant way. They will have opportunities for that, and I am sure that many parliamentary committees have already talked—in select committee style, if I may hark back to a Westminster expression—to voluntary organisations. That will grow. However, I have one fear, that there will not be sufficient time in committees and in Parliament to cope with the voluntary sector, given the curtailed hours that we work. When I say that our hours are curtailed, I mean our parliamentary hours, because I recognise that everyone has duties in their constituencies. But if we are truly to involve the people from the important voluntary sector, we must consider overlapping the meetings of the Parliament and of the committees.
We now move to the open part of the debate. Many members want to speak, so it would be helpful if members could restrict themselves to the time limit of four minutes for speeches. In an effort to be helpful, I will indicate when a member speaking has one minute left.
I will restrict my remarks almost entirely to the funding issue, but first let me say that the Scottish Liberal Democrats join the other parties in recognising the central role that the voluntary sector plays in Scottish life. In some ways, it is different from the voluntary sector south of the border. Scotland has a lot of smaller organisations—which brings some problems, especially in relation to funding—and the voluntary sector here has a stronger connection with the public sector.
In a debate such as this, it is easy to talk in
generalities, but that is in the nature of debates on this kind of motion. I would like to give four concrete examples of funding problems that illustrate exactly what the voluntary sector is up against.
The first example is LEAD Scotland in Fife— Linking Education and Disability. It does marvellous work, which dovetails with the strategic aims of Fife Council on equal opportunities, social inclusion and lifelong learning. At the moment, its Fife organiser, Emma Whitelock, has 48 students, and the work that she does is supported by 26 volunteers, but the funding runs out at the end of this month. She has been given her redundancy notice and the project is threatened with closure. That is a prime example of what the voluntary sector is up against: in a few days, the Fife branch of a superb national organisation that works with people with disabilities will cease to exist.
It is important to address the multifaceted problems of funding. LEAD Scotland's problems go beyond Fife, because it does not receive funding from many councils. The organisation believes that since local government reorganisation, local councils have been forced to prioritise and have concentrated more on supporting home-grown voluntary agencies and groups in the local authority area. That is not a criticism; authorities have had to prioritise, but the local branches of national organisations have tended to suffer as a result.
I should be grateful if the minister gave her personal attention to that prime example of the voluntary sector's funding problems. I have a copy of a moving letter about the Fife project that was sent to Councillor Christina May, leader of the Labour administration in Fife, which asks, indeed, almost begs for £20,000 to see the project through to 31 March 2000.
My second example is the Central Fife Survivors Project, which does much good work in the field of abuse. The project, which still exists, is another example of the instability and uncertainty of funding. Urban aid ran out and the project might have closed had it not been lucky enough to receive lottery funding. Fife Council has given the project much support in the past and has again given a commitment, but the long-term future of the project is far from secure.
I am particularly interested in two projects that deal with drug problems. The Scottish Drugs Forum's under-16s project is almost entirely dependent on funding from Comic Relief. In a sense, Comic Relief itself is in the voluntary sector, so again there is no long-term certainty in that source of funding.
My final example is the Simpsons House Prisoner Offenders Project, which provides a through-care service. The project does tremendous work and touches on an issue that I raised in this morning's debate. This debate follows on well from the earlier debate, when drug abuse issues and the problems faced by prisoners were raised. I made the point that we should not see prisons as an end in themselves, but that prisoners on release should receive a through- care approach from social services and others. The Simpsons House Prisoner Offenders Project has no statutory funding, receives 30 per cent of its funding from Lloyds TSB and has waited since March to hear from Lothian Health Board.
I hope that when the chancellor's war chest, or Treasury chest, is finally opened—perhaps ministers will attempt to find the key to it more quickly than him—more money will be disbursed to the voluntary sector from central Government. That sector should not have to rely increasingly on lottery funding, banks and corporations, which produces only instability. We need three-year core funding, towards which the Scottish Executive, local government and bodies such as health boards should work strongly.
I welcome the debate; I fully endorse the Executive's approach to a real partnership with the voluntary sector.
This time last year, I was working in the voluntary sector and, towards the end of the first half of the financial year, I was wondering whether I would be able to pay my staff as the year closed; where our core funding would come from; and how I would replace money from the National Lottery Charities Board which was about to run out. I welcome the Executive's commitment to put secure core funding for the voluntary sector on a three-year footing.
I hope that we will find a way for local authorities to do the same. My experience is that annually applying to 32 different local authorities took up a lot of business time and was not good use of a manager's time.
I was interested to read that about 60,000 people in Scotland are employed in the voluntary sector, which, as has been pointed out, is more than the combined figure of those involved in the mining, agriculture and quarrying industries. That struck a chord for me, as I represent a former mining community. I pay tribute to those who lost their jobs as a result of the closure of deep mines and who now form the backbone of the voluntary sector and community organisations in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. The people who are involved as befrienders, youth workers, children's panel members, carers group members and
members of Church groups are making a significant input to their communities, having been put on the scrap-heap when the pits closed.
I pay tribute to the people who act as fund raisers for their local groups, using a multitude of skills and talents that go unrecognised and unrewarded. Allowing those people to put their skills into practice in community businesses would create a real opportunity for sustainable development.
We heard this morning about the problems of young people and crime, but I pay tribute to the young people who are involved in the voluntary sector day in, day out and week in, week out. Those young people are not the problem, but are part of the solution; they can lead us forward on how we deal with young people's problems.
I am glad that the Executive is taking the voluntary sector seriously. For too long, the reality of life in the voluntary sector—or the third sector, as I should probably call it—involved low wages with no year-on-year increases, poor working conditions, long hours, no pension rights, little access to training, lack of support and supervision and no redundancy payments when projects came to an end. I hope that the proposed partnership will address those problems by securing sufficient core funding.
I was pleased that Jackie Baillie mentioned joined-up thinking in government, in relation to other areas that impact on the voluntary sector. I want to raise a couple of points that are problematic but on which I do not expect detailed answers today, because more debate is required. The first concerns the voluntary sector in rural areas and transport costs. At a surgery last week in Auchinleck, a constituent who is a cancer patient said that he felt that he owed a tribute to the volunteer drivers who had driven him for his treatment every week. He was concerned about what might happen if road congestion charges had an impact on the voluntary sector. A number of voluntary organisations have urged us to address that concern, and I am sure that we will.
My second point concerns the potentially thorny problem of the Scottish Criminal Record Office checks, particularly in relation to children's organisations. People who are unemployed and might want to volunteer their services would not be able to pay a fee up front to prove that they did not have criminal convictions. No matter how many such checks are made, we have no guarantee that people cannot slip through the net. Scottish Criminal Record Office checks are no substitute for a good vetting procedure or for good training and supervision of volunteers.
Members of the business community often organise fund-raising events and consider the voluntary sector in their local areas. I challenge people in the business community to undertake a social audit in their area. They could consider how to contribute to their local community in a sustainable way, not by organising one-off fund- raising events, but by ensuring that their company or organisation allowed staff to give time and expertise to the voluntary sector in the longer term.
I do not often agree with Phil Gallie, but I almost did today until he spoiled it all. I agree with what he said about the valuable organisations that work with young people, but I do not agree that we should spend more time in the chamber talking about the voluntary sector.
I want to have time to meet the organisations and talk to the people. I still want to give some of my time on a voluntary basis, in my way and in my area.
Can I just clarify—
The member has finished, Mr Gallie. Please sit down.
I was robbed.
I want to focus on the phrase
"promoting social inclusion and encouraging active citizenship" in Jackie Baillie's motion and on the increasing number of elderly people in society, of which the minister will be well aware. A few statistics, produced by Age Concern, might be useful. In 1997, the population of Scotland was some 5 million plus; that is a falling population. Of that number, more than 1 million were aged over 60; nearly 400,000 of them were in the 75-plus age group and 80,000 were in the 85-plus age group. Those figures are set to rise—by 2016 21 per cent of our population will be over 75. In Scotland now, we have more people of pensionable age than we have schoolchildren, yet we do not have facilities for many of our older people, who live in poverty, in poor housing, with poor pensions, poor access to transport, health problems and so on.
Like Keith Raffan, I have a shopping list. I want to draw the minister's attention to Broomhill day centre at Penicuik. I hope that the deputy minister will listen to this example, as the establishment does not cost much. The centre was set up 16 years ago, at which time it operated one day a week as a day centre for the frail and elderly. Now, the centre operates five days a week and has places for 85 individuals in Penicuik and its environs, 25 per cent of whom suffer from varying
degrees of dementia, and 75 per cent of whom are simply physically frail.
In 1997-98, the centre got £47,950 from the social work department and £10,250 from a one- off health grant. It had to grub around to get another £12,000 from trusts. The centre managed to raise £70,150 in total and expended only £72,000 in running costs, which is peanuts. It works out at a cost per individual for day respite care of £85—that is all. However, it is money well spent, not just for the taxpayer, but in terms of the human happiness brought by keeping people in their community.
The centre also provides day relief for the carers who are behind every one of the people who use the centre and who might have fallen into ill health themselves were it not for the simple respite care that the centre provides, along with counselling and the opportunity to meet other carers.
However, the centre has to grub around for money again this year and does not even have a health grant available to it. I therefore welcome the three-year programme of funding, but I want something more.
Will the member wind up now, please?
I have two short questions for the minister. Will she address the funding problems of that day centre, which has such low demands? Furthermore, will she consider the wider matter of statutory rights to funding for day care centres?
First, I must declare an interest. I am still actively involved in volunteering and the voluntary sector, as I am sure many people here are. Until October, I am also convener of the Council of Voluntary Service Scotland. I hope that members will forgive me if I mention some issues relating to the CVS.
I thank Jackie Baillie for introducing this motion on the voluntary sector. It is like a breath of fresh air to be talking about the voluntary sector and about partnership. I agree with Phil Gallie that the voluntary sector has flourished in Scotland, but sometimes that was in spite of the Conservative Government, rather than because of it.
Jackie talked about the number of people who are employed in the voluntary sector—60,000. There are 27,000 charities in Scotland and 40,000 voluntary organisations, which makes it a big sector. Eighty-six per cent of voluntary organisations are local organisations, run and managed by local people working at grass-roots level. That is an important point.
In the field of social inclusion, umbrella organisations such as the Council of Voluntary Service can get to the part that others cannot reach—they have the Heineken effect, if members will excuse me for referring to the commercial. Such organisations can get to communities, because the people who are involved in them live in the communities. That is why such organisations are valuable. The same is true in rural areas.
Voluntary organisations work across the spectrum. They are not just about meals on wheels, although that is important, but about social care and development, education, culture and recreation, economic development and ensuring a strong input into the social economy, and children and young people. Members have been talking about their areas, so I will tell members about a success story in mine.
Yogi's Sobar is a non-alcohol bar run by and for young people. Members could try to tell those young people about the voluntary sector or talk to them about politics, but they would be given a hard time. Those youngsters cannot be flannelled; they know where they are going. That is the kind of project that we should support—projects that are not just about doing good things for poor people, but about encouraging people to become involved.
The voluntary sector is also involved in health and employment. It has played a key role in the new deal in Scotland and has probably performed better than everyone else in the United Kingdom. The sector is also involved in the environment and community development. I could go on, but I know that I have only four minutes.
Scotland should be proud of its voluntary sector, but it is not a cheap option. The attitude cannot be, "We will run it on the cheap with volunteers and that will be okay." The sector must be supported and valued.
Cathy Jamieson is right: voluntary organisations have struggled over the years, not only to deliver a professional service, but to raise the resources to enable them to do so. As any voluntary sector worker will say, it is the only sector where workers have got to go out and raise the money for their own wages.
If workers do not get paid in March, that is because there is not enough money in the budget. We need to do something about that and that is why I welcome this motion and the minister's commitment to a strong infrastructure for the voluntary sector in Scotland. We should value and recognise the voluntary sector as partners in policy making and in our work.
I hear what the minister says about the compact and that we have to start at the very beginning
with it. The compact in Scotland was the result of a partnership between the voluntary sector and the Government. It was not a document that people agreed bits and pieces of—every line and every phrase was agreed in partnership. It is up to us and to the voluntary sector to ensure that the compact is monitored. I hope, Jackie, that it will come back to the Parliament to be reviewed.
We welcome this debate and I look forward to working with the voluntary sector in Scotland in the future.
There are many commendable voluntary groups and bodies in the Highlands and Islands, but in respect of the geography and topography of the area, there are two that stand out in importance. We have many beautiful but dangerous mountains and miles of equally beautiful and dangerous coastline that are visited by thousands of people.
Luckily, we have the mountain rescue squads and the lifeboats. Both of those excellent organisations are totally supported by the public's voluntary contributions and they are fiercely independent. They not only save many lives but also save us, the general public, an enormous and unquantifiable sum of money each year. In the '70s, the then Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, asked a lifeboat convener what it cost to fund the lifeboats. The reply was £17 million, to which Jim said that it would cost 10 times more if the service was run by the Government. Perhaps he exaggerated, but there is no reason to suppose that the equation has changed much. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution funding requirement, which today is £70 million, represents a far greater figure in financial savings to our people.
The lifeboats are supported entirely by the public; they have no help, financial or otherwise, from the Government, so no strings are attached. There is partnership, in that the lifeboats work closely with paid civil servants, such as coastguards, who normally alert them to casualties, and the other rescue services. Occasionally, RNLI research has been useful to the Royal Navy.
There are 250 lifeboat stations, of which 45 are in Scotland. All are voluntary with one paid man per boat, who is usually the mechanic or coxswain. The new fast boats, which do 25 knots, can operate out to 50 miles and co-operate with the helicopters. The operational side is run from the headquarters in Poole, but there are operational and technical staff in Scotland who work with stations independently and keep in touch with headquarters.
The present chief of operations was trained in Scotland. The make-up of crews varies greatly nowadays. For example, my local station in Oban, Argyll, has a master mariner as cox and a lawyer, a doctor, a cook, a shopkeeper and a fisherman as crew—people from all walks of life who take great pride in being a cog in this inspiring network.
The fund-raising headquarters is in Edinburgh and Scotland has the best per capita fund-raising record in the UK. There are hundreds of large and small fund-raising organisations, both coastal and inland. The cox decides whether the lifeboat sails; we must remember that when ordinary craft come in to shelter, the lifeboat is going out. The RNLI saves more than 3,000 lives each year— sometimes at the cost of the lives of the crew. In 1971, the Longhope disaster occurred, in which nearly the whole crew perished. Despite Longhope being a tiny community, a replacement crew was in place within 24 hours. A year later, there was another lifeboat disaster in Fraserburgh—again, that did not deter recruitment.
The Lochaber mountain rescue squad is the largest of the squads and, like the lifeboats, is entirely funded by the public. It costs £60,000 per annum to run and has so far undertaken 64 rescues this year—some of which were multiple rescues, not just individual rescues—and that figure is likely to rise to 90 rescues per annum. The squad works in partnership with the police, who supply it with some £1,500 of equipment per annum. It has access to the Sea King helicopters and services at Lossiemouth and HMS Gannet station in Prestwick. Each year, the squad raises some £20,000 from the highly popular Glen Nevis river race, which is also a great tourist attraction.
Like the lifeboat people, the mountain rescue teams work in terrifying conditions for no money because they want to help others. Those wonderful organisations, financed by the public, save many lives and an enormous amount of money. They also provide the space for individual and team acts of bravery and self-sacrifice which inspire pride in people and in communities.
With the millennium approaching, it is probable that there will be more exuberant, ill-equipped amateur mountaineers, and possibly more would- be Sinbads putting to sea in unsuitable craft. It would be helpful if the Executive could offset problems by putting out information through television, leaflets and information centres, warning of the considerable dangers of climbing and sailing in the Highlands and Islands in winter and during the millennium.
I welcome the motion, which recognises the
importance of the voluntary sector in carrying forward key elements of the Government's social inclusion strategy. I also welcome the consensus that there appears to be around the motion. The minister's proposals, in particular the establishment of the voluntary issues unit, will significantly advance the sector's capability to deliver its part of the agenda. I also welcome the earlier commitment to look at the Council of Voluntary Service and to take that issue forward.
As a member of the Kemp commission, I spent a considerable amount of time between 1995 and 1997 listening to people who work in the voluntary sector, to its clients and to organisations that commission services from the sector. The commission talked to people about their achievements, their concerns and their aspirations. I was impressed by the sheer scope and range of voluntary sector organisations, the efficiency of both paid and voluntary staff and the capacity of the sector to innovate and respond to the needs it seeks to meet.
At the time of the Kemp commission's work, the key challenge facing the voluntary sector in Scotland was dealing with the disruption caused by local government reorganisation. That disruption was the fault not of local government, but of the unwanted reorganisation imposed by central Government. It created a huge crisis for the voluntary sector—in many ways more acute than that for local government. There was a crisis in funding, and one caused by divergent policy requirements as the new authorities found their feet.
It was abundantly clear to Kemp commission members that there was a pressing need for a new set of arrangements between local government, central Government and the voluntary sector. We envisaged a new type of partnership arrangement that would allow the sector to manage its activities better, while maintaining its strengths, among the most important of which are its flexibility and diversity. The commitments that the minister is bringing forward today go a long way toward making that partnership a reality.
Lloyd Quinan said that he has been looking at this issue for only a few months and that he hopes local government will also commit to funding organisations for a three-year period. I must tell him that local government has been well in advance of central Government in building towards a three-year commitment. COSLA and the voluntary sector began to develop their positive partnership strategy in 1995 and earlier this year COSLA's voluntary sector task group, which is chaired by Mike McCarron, issued guidance to councils on the funding of voluntary organisations, which incorporated advice on a shift to three-year funding.
Does Mr McNulty agree, however, that although the intention exists and people are proposing policy practice notes or whatever, the reality is—as Cathy Jamieson so eloquently said—that most voluntary organisations have to cope with one- year funding? That causes great administrative problems and anxiety, and increases costs.
I agree that the situation in the past has been unsatisfactory. We now want to change it. Today's commitments will go a great way towards that. Including the urban programme, voluntary organisations currently get almost £60 million in direct funding from central Government. They get £110 million from local government and approximately £280 million from non-departmental public bodies, such as health boards, local enterprise companies, Scottish Homes and a host of other organisations.
If we are moving towards a three-year funding arrangement, we should be looking at it across the range of Government activities. I hope that the minister will encourage her ministerial colleagues to adopt that approach across the budgets for which they are responsible. That could be an effective and cost-neutral way of boosting the voluntary sector's capability to contribute towards meeting the objectives and targets that the Government has set in its partnership document.
It is crucial that we examine the situation in a holistic and rounded way. One of the great things about the voluntary sector is the multiplier effect of its work. Through individual giving, £320 million comes into the voluntary sector, and money is raised through other activities such as commercial activity.
Significantly greater services are delivered by the voluntary service, compared with the public sector, for a given amount of money. That is why the voluntary sector is cost-effective.
Wind up now, please.
I will wind up in a second.
The voluntary sector also involves people. If social inclusion is to mean anything, the direct participation of those who work for voluntary organisations and other people is vital to the delivery of services.
I welcome the commitment to examine the level of volunteering in the older industrial areas where volunteering is not as common as it is in more prosperous areas.
I might be unique—although Jackie Baillie might be in a similar situation—in having a relatively prosperous area and an older industrial area in my
constituency. I would like to see parity in terms of voluntary sector activity in those areas.
There is much that we can do and I urge the minister to examine the possibility of simplifying the requirements on voluntary organisations in accessing funding. It would be great if we were able to simplify that process and make it more transparent.
In conclusion, the Kemp commission recognised the need to revise charity law. The commitment to do that, which was made by the Government prior to the election, must be honoured. I hope that that will happen in due course.
The number of members who have experience in the voluntary sector is one of the unsung glories of the Scottish Parliament. That experience has been shown in the excellent debate that we have had today, and particularly in the speech made by Cathy Jamieson.
We should also welcome the fact that we have a minister who spoke with knowledge and commitment when giving her guarantees and assurances to us today, and who has a background in the voluntary sector.
The support for the voluntary sector in everything that has been said today is welcome. My first point is about the independence of the voluntary sector. It is—and should be—genuinely independent, with its own objectives, ethos and character.
Although I support the Scottish Executive, I would like to state clearly that the voluntary sector's main job is not to deliver the Labour and Liberal Democrat partnership's programme for government. Its main job is to advance its own plural and diverse objectives to fulfil a series of aims—which will contribute to the rich variety in society—regardless of whether they fit in with the overall programme of the Scottish Executive.
Those aims can be the provision of independent and impartial advice from citizens advice bureaux, fighting the cause of the homeless through Shelter, or environmental interests being served by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has a larger membership than all our political parties put together.
That is not to say that co-operation between the voluntary sector and central and local government is not crucial. Of course it is, and there are myriad partnerships to prove it. Many of them are essential agencies in achieving the Executive's objectives. The partnership between Government and the voluntary sector should be one of equals. Core funding for the sector should be more assured and should take less time to access than it has in the past. I welcome the three-year commitment of the Executive.
I used to chair Rutherglen and Cambuslang citizens advice bureau. We spent a great deal of time trying to access and secure funding. When I multiply that time by the number of CABs in Scotland and by the number of organisations in the voluntary sector, it becomes clear that the time spent in that process is out of proportion to the paltry sums of money involved.
We must find ways to remove the burden of red tape from volunteers' shoulders to allow them to get on with their jobs. Donald Gorrie talked about the need for bumf-busting committees, which would be important in getting rid of the hoops through which people must jump to get funding.
My next point is connected: we must reinforce successful projects. It is all very well to set up new projects, but it is at least as important to retain the mechanisms of existing projects and to keep them going. It is easier to do that than to start a new structure from scratch, just as it is easier to continue with an existing customer base in private business than to start a new one.
In Easterhouse, there are no fewer than 298 voluntary groups. There is an almighty furore over plans to develop the new social inclusion partnership arrangements in Easterhouse—a reasonable objective in itself, but one that seems to be ignoring or sidelining the role of the existing voluntary organisations—and to wind up the successful Greater Easterhouse Council of Voluntary Organisation, which was regarded as a prototype in its field. We must be careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water when we reorganise structures like that.
Let us ensure that, as well as funding, supporting and recognising the independence of the voluntary sector, we keep our doors open to the ideas that that sector has to offer. The 28,000 recognised charities—and many beyond them that are not formally recognised—have a wealth of experience and suggestions to offer, which this Parliament must take on board. Let us keep the doors of our organisation open to ensure that that experience is used effectively in the policy development mechanism.
On days such as this, I feel that I am in the chamber not only as George Reid, SNP, but as George Reid, CSG. When the consultative steering group put together the building blocks for this Parliament, we acknowledged with gratitude the debt that we owed Scotland's voluntary sector. During the long years when we had a Government
imposed on us for which we had not voted, the voluntary sector was a light in the darkness, pointing the way to a Scottish legislature that would do things differently.
Now that we have our Parliament, there are those who say that the way in which we proceed in the future will be determined by two major fault lines: unionism versus nationalism and left versus right versus the third way. However, there is another fault line that is of great importance to the voluntary sector and the sort of society that we are going to build. It is the fine line between Government and governance; how this Parliament and the Executive tap into the expertise of civic Scotland and how our voluntary organisations can contribute—in the words of the compact—
"their experience and ideas to the development and implementation of public policy".
At the Scottish general election, all parties supported the principle of social partnership. Now we are moving from principle to practice to small print. There may be ministers and ministers-inwaiting who are anxious to imprint the firm stamp of personal authority on decisions, but who are not too enthusiastic about an extended series of consultation procedures or having to listen to disparate voices. Civil servants are also distinctly underwhelmed by the prospect of other bodies having a role in briefing and informing those who are involved in Scottish decision making.
None the less, partnership and participation remain basic building blocks of this Parliament. The CSG took the absolutely clear view that the Executive and the Parliament are no longer to be the sole source of policy development and formulation. Particularly in the wicked bits of governance that fall between departmental divisions, the real experts who have hands-on experience are probably to be found among Scotland's 900,000 volunteers and their 60,000 professional staff.
As an MSP/CSG, I have been banging on doors about that for quite a long time. Henry is all in favour of it, but has moved on. Jim is totally committed, but has a lot on his plate. Jackie has responsibility for the voluntary sector and is doing a remarkably good job, but she is not a minister but a deputy. Wendy, who can speak the language of social inclusion, governance and marginalisation rather better than most of us, has got in her pre-emptive hit and headlines, quite rightly, on citizens juries and panels. I warmly congratulate her on that, and wish her well. However, the buck stops with Jack—who is not here, and who must now be wondering how he is going to maximise the message.
A couple of weekends ago, at the Stirling assembly, Canon Kenyon Wright gave Jack an ultimatum: Jack, he said, must initiate the civic forum by St Andrew's day. Or what? Esther Roberton and I argued that, more important than doing things now, we should do things right. I hope that the ministers will agree that this is an area in which process—the multiple entry points to decision making for civic Scotland—is probably more important than structure. None the less, Canon Wright was echoing widespread concerns. I would be grateful, therefore, if the minister, in summing up, would address a few basic questions.
Can the minister give a firm assurance that the civic forum is coming soon? Can she confirm that it will be adequately funded over three years? Does she agree that the forum should be a gateway to our voluntary organisations, not a gatekeeper that boxes them in? Will she comment on the advice given to Parliament about the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General being able to speak and participate in the Parliament but not vote, and will she address my concern that such arrangements exclude representatives of the voluntary sector from acting as advisers or sitting on committees?
In the spirit of constructive engagement, which I hope will be the hallmark of the SNP in this Parliament, I agree that the Executive has made a good and constructive start in setting out the principles of its engagement with the voluntary sector. To date, however, the arrangements seem a little fragmented, with the details being unveiled according to the commitment and agenda of individual ministers. However, when Wendy winds up, we may get the big picture.
I whole-heartedly support Jackie Baillie's motion and I congratulate her on her opening remarks.
The importance and value of the voluntary sector in Scotland was ignored for too long. The benefits of volunteering for both the community and the individual were undervalued; they should not have been. Volunteers benefit by gaining more confidence in themselves, their skills and their abilities; moreover, their job prospects become brighter. In turn, their efforts benefit both the voluntary organisation and the local community as a whole. Lack of motivation, lack of involvement and lack of training and skills are so often the causes of social exclusion, and the promotion of the voluntary sector plays a valuable part in tackling it.
Consultation and dialogue between the Scottish Executive and the voluntary sector is the best way for Scotland to gain even larger benefits from our
volunteers. I know that the Executive is committed to guaranteed independence for voluntary organisations, and those involved in the voluntary sector should be encouraged to feel free to criticise the work of Government, regardless of their sources of funding.
The direct involvement in policy making of people who work in the voluntary sector has obvious benefits, and their unique knowledge should be used to advantage.
The importance of the voluntary sector to the people of Scotland is especially evident in my constituency. The voluntary sector is particularly active in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, where there are more than 200 organisations, most of which are small, with between one and 10 volunteers and with only one or two full-time staff.
One such organisation is the Alpha project, which has been running for more than 30 years. Its aim is to provide practical help and solutions to the everyday problems of people with physical disabilities. Thirteen staff and 10 volunteers supply expert personal care and support and are fully trained to carry out a full range of day care services.
Those who are helped by the Alpha project are individually assessed for their physical and their psychological needs. They derive benefit from the project, but the staff and volunteers also benefit greatly. In July, the Alpha project was the first organisation of its kind in Lanarkshire to be given an Investors in People award. That is something of which the people who have been involved over the years are very proud.
The value of the voluntary sector in Scotland, both for the community and for those who work in the sector and gain great benefits from it, should not be underestimated. The minister, as has been said, has a background in the voluntary sector and recognises the importance of the sector and of its independence. I am sure that she will promote dialogue and consultation to encourage the sector and to maximise the benefits that it brings to all of us. I wish her luck.
I welcome the debate as an explicit recognition of the importance of the voluntary sector to society. I was particularly interested in Jackie's remarks on the geographic spread of voluntary organisations and activities. The chief executive of Annandale and Eskdale Council for Voluntary Service told me that there are 500 voluntary organisations in that area, which contains only about 40,000 people. In some ways, we must welcome such a diversity of organisations but that strength may also be a weakness, as the volunteers and the financial resources are thinly spread. In many small communities, a core of people are involved in all the organisations, which would not function without them.
I have been struck by the volume of correspondence I have received from a multitude of organisations across Scotland that appear to overlap in their activities. I welcome the minister's suggestion that she would welcome a review into whether there should be fewer but better-focused, better-resourced organisations, which I believe would be in the best interests of the voluntary sector and of society.
I hope that we recognise the complexity of the task of those who work in the voluntary sector. We have heard a lot of praise for volunteers this afternoon but those who manage and co-ordinate them are not given the credit that they deserve. My background is not in voluntary organisations but in business—Wendy will know phrases such as "sweating the matrix" and other such management techniques. When I became a parliamentary candidate and had to work more closely with volunteers than I had been accustomed to, I realised what a challenge their work was, even when people were wanting to help and offer support—it is a complicated and important job.
I am pleased with what has been said about funding. However, many organisations receive Government money from a number of different sources; there may be a better process of distributing funding than for money to come from the local council, central Government, the local enterprise company, the health board and perhaps lottery funding. Money is cascaded down by the Government and comes back together in a single organisation. Are we wasting resources because of the way in which money gets to the end user?
My final point is one that Cathy Jamieson also made. It would be helpful if Jackie had a word in the ear of the transport minister—or perhaps her new deputy who appeared for her today—about transport costs for the voluntary sector. The voluntary sector has to pay fuel duty and in vast rural areas that can be a problem. An example is Dumfries and District Women's Aid, which was mentioned in the domestic violence debate. The organisation can be effective only if it can get out and help people in the remoter parts of the community, but that means that there are fuel costs.
I have worked in the private, public and voluntary sectors and that experience has shown me that the voluntary sector—which has also been described
as the third sector or the social economy—is innovative, imaginative, dynamic and flexible.
The voluntary sector is also democratic and accountable in a way that many organisations in other sectors are not. As well as sometimes being a weakness, that is also one of its underlying strengths, because it brings the sector close to the community and to the people who rely on its services. It is significant that, in this debate, many speakers have taken the time to praise the efforts of the countless volunteers throughout Scotland who make such a significant contribution to the quality of life not just of communities but, as important, of individuals. Without those volunteers many people's lives would be severely blighted.
It is important that we begin to talk about the social economy, because the sector is no longer just about volunteering. It is tremendously dynamic and has made a huge economic contribution in countless communities. For example, credit unions—I am a member of one—have made a significant economic contribution.
Housing associations have also made a difference in many communities—we can see the effect that they have had on people's quality of life. Many housing associations have developed beyond being simply housing providers and now provide social care and employment opportunities. I would argue that housing associations have the potential to make a greater contribution to Scottish society than we are asking them to make. I hope that the Executive will look into that closely.
If we are talking about added responsibility, we must also begin to talk about greater accountability. When the social economy and the voluntary sector are asked to take on greater responsibilities and receive more funding, they will have to be accountable, just as local authorities must be accountable. I hope that the Scottish Executive will examine ways of addressing that, not punitively, but positively.
Will the Executive take on board the fact that a lot of the voluntary organisations that are being funded have to pay back a lot of money in VAT? For example, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is paying back £1.5 million a year. Will the Executive address that matter?
That question would be more appropriately addressed to the Executive. I cannot speak on behalf of the Executive.
I was making the point that the issue of accountability must be seen in a positive light. Accountability will strengthen the role of the voluntary sector and enable it to perform its duties with greater security.
I have a warning for those colleagues who raised issues to do with the funding of certain organisations. We talk about involving the voluntary sector and the social economy in policy making. By all means let us examine how we can do that, but we must remember that we cannot say that this Parliament should not interfere with the rights of local authorities while telling those local authorities how they should engage with voluntary organisations in their areas. Rather than be entirely prescriptive, we should be involved in providing a strategic framework within which local authorities can operate. Similarly, we cannot come to this Parliament with tales of problems in individual organisations that are funded by local authorities and at the same time say that this Parliament should not interfere with the rights of local authorities—we cannot have it both ways.
I have had experience of a range of excellent organisations in my area, such as Renfrewshire Association for Mental Health, One Plus, Unity Enterprise Ltd and various housing associations. Cathy Jamieson is right to raise the issue of Scottish Criminal Record Office checks and vetting. We cannot expect people to perform checks and then ask them to fund those checks. We must do something about that.
I want to know whether the Scottish Executive, through the Minister for Finance, will consider some of the difficulties associated with European funding. We will threaten many organisations if we do not sort that out. Finally, will the minister consider the gaps in funding that may arise between current programmes and subsequent programmes? If we do not deal with that problem, many voluntary organisations will go to the wall.
I realise that time is short, so I will be concise. I welcome the fact that the Executive recognises the important role that the voluntary sector plays in Scotland. Thousands of people give their time year after year. Groups would cease to exist without them. I applaud every one of them.
Most people have raised the issue of funding but I will concentrate on the part of the minister's speech in which she stated the Executive's commitment to create a stable—I stress that word—infrastructure. Hugh, like myself, was a councillor in a previous life. He mentioned various groups, but I will not talk about individual groups, as I would be here all day. Some of them were excellent and, unfortunately—Hugh would probably back me up—some of them were not.
As a councillor, I dealt daily with voluntary groups. One thing that they had in common was a lack of stable funding. The organisations receive some grants from the lottery and local councils but those are, at best, sporadic. Some groups survive
month to month, dependent on public donations. I recognise what Jackie said and believe that she will try to make progress, but if we are serious about the voluntary sector's role, we must ensure that the Parliament and local councils provide the infrastructure for dialogue, as Hugh said.
As well as dialogue, those groups need training and funding to enable them to flourish. As George said, they have great expertise in areas in which the Parliament and local councils do not have it. We should be tapping into those voluntary groups and using their expertise. We should encourage an exchange of knowledge. We should not exclude them.
I accept what Jackie said and, when I see the finished product, I am sure that I will be proven right in my belief that she means what she says. I am not saying that we, or local councils, should take over the running of those organisations, as was implied in some speeches. The minister has reiterated that that is not what the compact states. We must co-operate more closely with voluntary groups, to the benefit of both sides. The independent nature of those groups means that they would not want to be tied to officialdom.
By creating meaningful dialogue and co-operation among the authorities and in the communities that the voluntary organisations serve, the voluntary organisations will play their part in the regeneration of our communities. Those organisations work on the ground and see what is needed. Voluntary organisations can push forward an agenda that will ensure fairness for all.
This has been a positive debate, discussing a positive motion. The motion was charmingly presented, if I may say so. It is important to recognise the value of the voluntary sector, which almost every speaker has highlighted. We have heard contributions from all parts of Scotland, which have highlighted what the voluntary sector contributes to their communities. That cannot be a bad thing.
The voluntary sector also provides value for money. When Jackie Baillie has to go to Black Jack McConnell and ask for more money, perhaps the following information will be of some use to her. For example, the voluntary sector spends £1.8 billion per year. Of that, it raises £935 million, with only about £470 million coming from public funds. That, by any standards, is not a bad deal.
It would not be appropriate for me to speak in this debate without paying tribute to the enormous amount of good will that is generated by the voluntary sector and by the more than 40,000 volunteers who give so willingly of their time— some only a few hours, others much more. Those people commit their time and, in many cases, spend a considerable amount of their money to ensure that their organisations work. That is their special contribution to Scottish civic society. We are very fortunate to have people who are prepared to do that. Anything that we can do to make that contribution more worth while and to encourage a feel-good factor is to be welcomed.
I would like to have seen some aspects of the debate taken a bit further. Despite the undertaking that the minister has given, I am a little concerned that Government may involve itself too deeply. The voluntary sector is, by its very nature, voluntary. As far as possible, it should be detached from Government. While I see where the minister is coming from, we should not become too involved.
Indeed, I would encourage the Government to examine ways in which the voluntary sector could do more. Superficial examination would suggest that housing associations are run in a very positive way, and I wonder whether that could be extended to, for example, old folks homes. The people of an area might set up a management committee to run a home to which the old folk from that community could come. The idea may not be a runner, but it is perhaps worthy of examination.
While Government must remain detached, it must satisfy itself that there is a degree of accountability. Regardless of whether there is to be one-year or three-year funding, we must ensure that we get value for public money when it is invested.
The one reservation that I have about the voluntary sector is that it is not always as focused as it might be. Sometimes too many organisations are attempting to do the same thing. It is difficult to see how that can be changed, because everyone wants to put forward their own case and we would not wish to discourage that. However, we could seek to ensure that funds that are handled by the voluntary sector achieve maximum benefit for all.
I was amused by some of the examples that were cited in the debate, as members sought to promote their pet projects. I was particularly amused when Phil Gallie suggested that the minister consider putting money into the Caledonian Football Club, whose buildings are falling into disrepair. As a Partick Thistle supporter, I could ask the minister to put money into that club, whose players have fallen into disrepair.
There is not enough money for that.
As Mr McAveety says, there is not enough money for that.
Clearly, this has been a positive debate. However, there is much that could have been said about the voluntary sector that has not come out here, because its role is so wide, so deep and so interwoven into the fabric of Scottish society. This is an issue to which we will return in the months and years ahead. Today has been a positive start. As has been indicated, we will not be dividing on this motion. The volume and the quality of the contributions from this chamber are indicative of the fact that the Scottish Parliament is keen to recognise the tremendous achievement of the voluntary sector.
I call Fiona Hyslop to wind up for the Scottish National party.
I, too, welcome the support for the voluntary sector that the Executive has shown and the tributes that have been paid by members from all parties to Scotland's many volunteers, most of whom probably do not think of themselves as volunteers. I understand that Wendy Alexander has volunteered—rather than been press-ganged—to come to the SNP conference tomorrow for a fringe meeting debate. I am sure that she will receive a courteous reception.
This could be a key and defining debate for the Parliament. It is a signal of intent of how we think we will develop and what our relationship with the voluntary sector will be. George Reid made an important point: we have to see how far the Parliament is prepared to go to take on board the consultative steering group's recommendations. The real test will be this debate's follow-through.
Hugh Henry should be aware that the Parliament has not decided its relationship with local government yet. General competency has yet to be agreed, although I appreciate the points that he made.
In this debate, we should look at strategy, the operational aspect and the cultural attitude. The compact has to have analysis and I understand that there will be a debate on that at some point. The issue of the civic forum must be raised again.
We should explore policy-making issues. We are talking about involving professionals from the voluntary sector in the consultation process. However, on Friday, other Lothian MSPs and I were involved in a question-and-answer session with 40 organisations from the voluntary sector. They told us to think about involving the users of the voluntary sector in the consultation process. They pointed out that the Scottish Office had involved professionals in its consultation on HIV policy, but not the sufferers. I hope that progress can be made in that area.
Operationally, we have to address funding. We should recognise that the reason why local authorities are cutting back on voluntary sector funding is cuts in their own funding. In 1996-97, funding dropped from £134 million to £110 million. That is a 20 per cent drop.
I would also like the minister to address the point that was made about police checks. Angus MacKay acknowledged that criminal records checking has to be self-funding. Will the Executive give a commitment that it will meet that expense for the voluntary sector, particularly for children's organisations?
Will Fiona Hyslop agree that the problem is not just the financial burden—which the Guide Association reckons at £40,000—but the administrative burden?
I agree with that. A motion that deals with that has been lodged and I hope that Dr Simpson will support it. Cathy Jamieson touched on the point that if we want front-line services to be met, we cannot have our voluntary sector organisations being tied up with bureaucracy and red tape.
As someone who has come from the private sector, I say to members that, sometimes, best value does not come from competitive tendering but comes from the quality of relationships that have been built up between suppliers of services. Many people who are involved in the sector do not want to speak out because they do not want to bite the hand that feeds them. If providers of core services are in despair because they cannot provide the level of service that they want to because of a lack of funds, we are in a serious situation. We need to look at the social economy— what Des McNulty said on that was important.
The attitude of the debate should be one of respect: health boards should provide rooms for voluntary sector organisations, for example, and the voluntary sector should be represented on the task forces and inquiries that are being set up. It has been suggested that the Government treats the voluntary sector with the same respect as it treats the Confederation of British Industry, but how many members of the Cabinet have included someone from the voluntary sector in their reviews? That is the real test.
We want action in this area and we want it delivered with hard cash and by a positive attitude that can promote creative and innovative thinking. That will happen only in a sector that is confident and at ease with itself. The present climate of public sector funding is in danger of stifling that. We welcome the sentiment of the motion and we recognise the signal of intent but we are impatient for support and action.
This debate has done credit to the Parliament; I am reminded of the debate on violence against women, where the same expertise was shown by members on all sides of the chamber. It is also similar in one other respect—that the press gallery is entirely empty.
As Fiona said, this debate is not just about good intentions. It is about redefining the relationship between the third sector and Government in Scotland. Today is an opportunity not just for recognising the scale of the voluntary effort in Scotland, but for showing our determination, as the first Scottish Parliament in 300 years, to create the conditions in which that sector can flourish. As George Reid said, it is our opportunity to repay a debt of gratitude to people who for many years were a light in the darkness, arguing the case for our existence.
For the Executive and, I believe, for many other people who have spoken in the chamber today, the big idea is that, in future, Scotland's voluntary sector will be not just the key to delivering services, but fundamental to the development of policy. Like Fiona, I want the third sector to have the status in Scotland that the Scottish Trades Union Congress or the Confederation of British Industry has as leading social partners in the new Scotland.
I will deal with the three issues that have come up in the debate: finance; general support for the sector; and why the third sector matters.
Starting with finance, no one can dismiss the sort of pain resulting from annual funding that we have heard about today. The creation of the voluntary issues unit at the heart of the Executive as a champion for the sector means that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. Commitments have been given today: three-year core funding as the norm; commitment to funding core costs; discussing with local government its relationship to the sector; and the need for single applications so that Cathy Jamieson's successors do not have to fill in 32 forms before they have core funding.
We also need to talk about new exit strategies, which involves mainstreaming provision. What is exciting is that it is possible to build a political commitment in Scotland that says that the partnership with the third sector is real. We are seeing it happen in areas such as child care; it can begin to happen in a number of other areas.
On charity law in Scotland, we will give proper consideration to the work that is being undertaken at Dundee. On Scottish Criminal Record Office checks, everybody knows—post-Dunblane—that it was necessary to look at how we protect vulnerable groups. We are keeping the issue of charges actively under review.
Will Ms Alexander give way?
No, let me continue.
Many individual cases have been raised here—it is right that people do that. I will talk about some of the individual cases that I have seen recently. It devalues the stability and responsibility of health boards if I parachute a response in now. Of course members should write to the Scottish Executive if they feel that there is a case on which it has a locus, but, if not, we need to get the agencies responsible to take up the issue and feel a sense of responsibility about how they deal with the sector.
Briefly on finance, I note in passing that because of the Government's management of the economy, we are in a position to increase funding to local government in Scotland by 4.8 per cent this year. That creates a climate that allows some of the things that we have talked about today to happen.
The second issue is about support for the sector in general. Jackie has talked about the measures we are implementing for active citizenship, the giving age and millennium volunteers. We have talked about the infrastructure commitments we need to give, the review of councils for voluntary service and new cash to complete the network of volunteer development agencies. We have talked about the compact—I hope that the reassurances that have been given about the sector's independence reassure members about how we will move forward.
I turn to the issue raised by George Reid, who pointed out some of the difficulties that we have in achieving joined-up government. I want to treat the civic forum with the seriousness that it deserves, so I will not rush to answer every one of his points. He is right that process matters. At the moment, secondees are talking to the Scottish Executive about how we will get the funding arrangements right for the civic forum. If the civic forum is to fulfil its potential, it cannot simply be about the voluntary sector. One reason why it is difficult to get joined-up government right in this area is the sheer ambition of trying to have a civic forum that involves the third sector, the private sector and ways of talking to Government.
The third area is about why all this matters. Why do we have to support the third sector and the social economy? Members have talked about this. Bill Aitken said that it gives better decisions and more efficiency. Other people, including Cathy Peattie, have talked about getting innovation and about getting to the heart of the wickedest problems.
I have seen two examples recently—everybody gets to talk about this in real terms. On Friday, I was at the Renfrewshire Association for Mental Health. It spends almost £1 million in Renfrewshire, but receives less than £100,000 of that from its local health board. Frankly, the range of its activities astonished me. I know that other members could contribute similar anecdotes.
At lunchtime today, I was at the Glasgow lodging house mission. I talked to people who had spent more than 10 years on the streets of Glasgow. Many of them had been in prison and were looking for aftercare. Keith Raffan talked about the voluntary sector's commitment to getting aftercare provision for prisoners right. I say to him that steps are being taken across the Executive, such as the rough sleepers initiative. We will be announcing guidelines on the £14 million of new money that will allow the voluntary sector to contribute to better public policy.
It is appropriate to give a bit of the long-term vision. How do we get to the heart of this matter? I may be controversial here. It is not just about motherhood and apple pie. The third sector matters because it is about community empowerment and about giving people more power over their own lives. One of the ways in which we are doing that is through the social inclusion partnerships. We have said that not only must there be community representatives on every one of those area-based partnerships, but there must be a representative of the voluntary sector. We have said that we need to put £2 million into letting community representatives have more influence over the decisions that are taken in their name. We have talked about people's panels and people's juries.
Members will know that I also have responsibility for housing. We are going to put more than £300 million into new housing partnerships. That proposal is about community ownership and about putting communities and voluntary effort at the heart of how we govern our communities. It is about trusting people to make decisions about their lives. I hope that when we consider that proposal, it will be seen in that light.
This debate has been about the new politics. Members should work here with us to make that new politics a reality, and out there in partnership with the third sector, which will be our best ally in that.
The next item of business on the programme is consideration of other Parliamentary Bureau motions. I am glad to say that there is none, so we will move on to decision time.