Voluntary Sector
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2245, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on Executive support for the voluntary sector, and two amendments to the motion.
Parliament has not had a general debate on the voluntary sector for around two years. Things have moved on considerably since then and I want to update Parliament on the progress that we are making in our partnership with the sector.
The voluntary sector is vital to Scottish life and is a major player in all aspects of Scottish society and the Scottish economy as well as at a local, community level. The voluntary sector's potential comes from its distinct characteristics and values. It engages individuals in the life of communities and is close and sensitive to marginalised groups and areas. The sector's services are invariably delivered at a local level, at the sharp end of society's problems. The sector has a key role in helping to develop policies that work.
We believe that the sector can help us to achieve a much more inclusive and just society. The sector can provide sustainable jobs and services and build the capacity of people and communities. It is also a particularly important resource for those who face difficulties in respect of access or limited choice. We also believe that the involvement of civic society in shaping policies for Scotland is one of the opportunities that the Scottish Parliament has brought and that we should capitalise on that.
I want to remind members of the scope of the sector. There are 44,000 voluntary organisations in Scotland, which employ around 100,000 people. The sector enjoys income of more than £2 billion a year, which is around 4 per cent of our gross domestic product, and that income is growing. As well as having a large number of thriving voluntary organisations, Scotland enjoys the benefits of a long tradition of volunteering. Around 27 per cent of adults regularly take part in voluntary activity.
The outlook is positive. I see a sector that is improving in shape and is delivering more for the increased resources that have been invested in it, but that is capable of delivering more. The Executive wants the voluntary sector to bring its strength, sensitivity and responsiveness to local needs to the strategy to achieve social justice for Scotland.
Given that vision, what policies have we put in place to assist the sector in its development? We have committed to providing the legal, financial and structural framework that will enable the sector to reach its full potential in the contribution that it can make to Scotland. For the first time, a Scotland-wide network of councils for voluntary service and local volunteering development agencies provides support to volunteers and voluntary organisations in local communities. We have increased our funding to the sector, we are reviewing how we deliver that funding and we have introduced new financial vehicles such as social investment Scotland. I will say more about that and our review of charity law a little later.
The starting point in our partnership with the sector is the Scottish compact, which is the formal agreement between the Executive and the voluntary sector on working in partnership. The compact underpins and strengthens our relationship. Crucially, it gives the voluntary sector a place at the policy development table, which ultimately will make our policies much more responsive. The compact recognises the independence of the sector. I will always protect the sector's right to be critical of Government. If the sector was not independent, it would lose one of its greatest strengths.
The Executive and the voluntary sector are monitoring the implementation of the compact via a joint group. I undertook to come back to Parliament to report on progress. Today, I published the joint group's report on compact implementation for 2000-01 and copies are now available in the Scottish Parliament information centre and on the Scottish Executive website. The report reflects the broadly positive experience that we have of working together.
The adoption of the compact's principles makes a difference to the experience of the sector on the ground in dealing with the public sector. We want to develop further that area of work. The Executive is starting to take a much more sophisticated approach to compact implementation. We have followed up the publication of the compact and good practice guidance with training seminars for Executive staff and we hope to develop further support materials for officials.
The improvement in conditions for the sector is not all to do with the compact. Funding also plays a key part—obviously, levels and stability of funding are of critical importance to the sector. Our funding for the sector is growing. In 1998-99 the then Scottish Office provided £23 million directly to the voluntary sector. Earlier this month I announced that the figure had risen to planned expenditure of £39 million in this financial year. A further £270 million goes to the sector indirectly, through Scottish Homes, health boards and local enterprise companies. Total Executive direct and indirect funding to the sector is estimated at around £309 million.
As well as giving the voluntary sector more money, we have committed ourselves to reviewing how we fund the voluntary sector. In April we published a consultation document on the subject. The responses to that document welcome the review and generally express support for our aims and objectives. The development of a more stable funding environment, provision of three-year funding packages and steps to minimise bureaucracy were welcomed. Concerns were expressed that the Executive and other funders favour innovative projects, at the expense of existing core services with a proven and successful track record. There was support for the simplification and standardisation of grant processes. There was also support for making information more accessible on the Executive's website and enabling grants to be done online.
We shall take on board all those issues and we intend to pilot a model scheme in 2002-03, before moving to full implementation across the Executive from 2003-04.
The next stage is to turn our attention to considering our indirect funding of the sector. The recent consultation sought views on scoping that work further. We will also work with other funders to try to ensure that the funding schemes available to the sector offer resources that are complementary and that are not at cross-purposes.
We are also committed to undertaking a review of the social economy. With the aid of Stephen Maxwell, the assistant director of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, who has joined the Executive on secondment, we are examining the current contribution of the social economy to service provision and economic prosperity and the potential for social enterprise and the development of social capital. We will also consider what actions the Executive and others must take to grow that contribution.
We are considering new ways of funding the sector. Last week we launched social investment Scotland, a new loan fund for the social economy. It will provide loan finance and technical assistance to social economy organisations with the aim of stimulating wealth in disadvantaged communities by encouraging enterprise. The four Scottish clearing banks are providing loan finance of £3 million and public sector funding is £2 million, which includes £1.2 million of Executive grant.
As well as addressing funding issues, we recognise that charity law in Scotland needs to be updated to take account of changes in the structure, nature and role of the voluntary sector. We established an independent commission, under Jean McFadden, to examine the issues involved. Its report was submitted to ministers in May and the Executive is currently consulting widely on the recommendations made. We anticipate publishing a full response early in 2002.
I welcome the Scottish Charity Law Review Commission. Can the minister indicate when we might expect legislation to allow charity Scotland to be set up?
As I said, we anticipate publishing a full response early in 2002. Any bill must take its place alongside competing priorities in a full legislative programme. I cannot give Tricia Marwick a commitment that legislation will necessarily be brought forward in this session.
I mentioned the key role of volunteers. We are committed to increasing the number of people from all communities who take part in voluntary activities. To achieve that we are pushing forward our active communities initiative. Last year, we made available £650,000 to support the initiative. This year, we have increased that to £1.65 million. We have also joined in the celebration of the United Nations international year of volunteers 2001. I know that many members throughout the chamber have also been involved.
We also support the millennium volunteers programme, which is a UK-wide initiative that promotes volunteering specifically among 16 to 24-year-olds. It creates opportunities for young people to contribute to their community and to their personal development through volunteering. We currently fund about 2,000 places across Scotland at a cost of just under £700,000 per year. The millennium volunteers programme is relatively new and we are keen to learn from its early experience. I can announce that the programme will continue in its present form until the end of 2002-03.
We have already announced that we will make available £1 million a year to ensure that people who volunteer to work with children and vulnerable adults in the voluntary sector may have criminal record checks carried out at no cost to the volunteer or to the voluntary organisations concerned. At the same time, we said that up to £250,000 a year would be available for a central registered body. I am pleased to announce today that Volunteer Development Scotland will be invited to act as that central body. As the national centre for volunteering and community involvement, VDS already has close links with volunteers and with the voluntary sector. We can feel confident that the sector will receive the necessary help and guidance to make the best possible use of criminal record checks.
The Scottish Executive values the contribution across Scotland of the voluntary sector—from small community groups to Scotland-wide providers; from playgroups to care providers; and from faith communities and their volunteers to the way that the sector tackles homelessness, drug addiction and the other difficult issues faced by our communities. The sector is a key partner for Government, but it is also a key partner in our communities, whether they are geographical communities, disadvantaged communities or communities of interest. The sector tackles and alleviates poverty and helps to renew our neighbourhoods. Partnership will deliver social justice in Scotland. Our partnership with the voluntary sector is critical for success. Together, we can—and will—make a difference.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the Executive's recognition of the important role of the voluntary sector in Scottish society through the contribution it increasingly makes to promoting social justice, encouraging active citizenship and widening economic prosperity; endorses the progress made by the Executive in its commitment to working in partnership with the sector through the framework of the Scottish Compact, and welcomes the commitment demonstrated by the Executive through its increased resourcing of the sector.
I warmly welcome this debate and agree wholeheartedly with much of the minister's speech and the objectives and aims that she outlined.
Increasingly, the Parliament has recognised the third sector's invaluable contribution to Scottish life. Without it, how could we begin to tackle poverty, regenerate communities or promote active citizenship? How could society function with any real quality of life and how could we replace volunteers' ceaseless commitment and their massive contribution to the Scottish economy and society? In previous debates, I have been impressed by the commitment that members across the chamber have shown to the voluntary sector and by their clear understanding of it. Those members include Cathy Peattie, Des McNulty, Robert Brown, Jamie McGrigor, Keith Raffan and George Reid, to name but a few.
Although the SNP is broadly supportive of the Executive, I wish to raise a number of points. Across the voluntary sector, the issue of funding is often at the forefront. Financial support must not come at a price. Organisations must retain their independence without big brother looking over their shoulder. No doubt Bill Aitken will cover that point when he speaks to his amendment, which specifically addresses the issue. I am pleased that the minister has offered reassurances with regard to the Scottish compact on that matter.
The public must have equality of access to independent advice and information services and the Executive must ensure an even spread of services across Scotland. As the minister will acknowledge, much essential work has still to be done in that area if social exclusion is to be tackled effectively.
The Government and Executive should consider the impact on the voluntary sector when implementing legislation or making changes in benefits. For example, 77 per cent of Department of Social Services forms advise people to go to citizens advice bureaux for help and advice, but little thought has been given to the increased work load that such a suggestion places on CABx. The need for additional resources in such circumstances is often ignored. It should not be.
The minister mentioned additional resources for the voluntary sector. The SNP welcomes funding increases even if, in some cases, they simply fill a gap left by cuts elsewhere, but as the minister is aware and as the SNP amendment points out, a number of concerns about statutory funding procedure remain.
At last week's Social Justice Committee meeting, the SCVO raised a number of matters that our amendment touches on. For example, high transaction costs might arise when a voluntary organisation applies to a variety of funding schemes that all have different timetables, compliance regimes and application forms. The smaller the organisation, the greater the hurdle to overcome. The Executive has acknowledged that problem in the past and, in the voluntary sector debate on 23 September 1999, the former Minister for Communities, Wendy Alexander, committed the Executive to resolving the issue. However, it has not been entirely resolved.
Consistency among public sector funders is essential if we are to have a true measure of how effective an organisation is. Standardised audit procedures, funding periods and inflation costings would go a long way to ensuring that consistency.
Pilotitis—a great word for "Call My Bluff" aficionados—is the issue that causes most irritation to voluntary organisations and was touched on in the minister's opening speech. Pilotitis is the funding of exciting and innovative new projects that are unproven, which soak up resources that are urgently required by established organisations that provide vital services, yet which often struggle to survive, let alone excite or innovate. A more appropriate balance must be struck to ensure that new projects can emerge without cannibalising money that is required by existing, successful ventures.
One hopes that the power of community initiative that is to be introduced will secure leadership in the public sector in relation to the cocktail approach to funding, which can, on occasion, cause voluntary organisations to divert considerable staff resources and time to the accessing of funds. I trust that the minister will address that issue in her winding-up speech.
The lack of agreement on the scope and rationale of core funding impacts on any voluntary organisation. Having read our amendment, the minister touched on that matter in her speech. Placing emphasis on projects rather than organisations can lead to instability in the sector, making it more difficult to make long-term plans and leading to a detrimental effect on morale, staff retention and the day-to-day running of an organisation. Direct funding is a nettle that has been grasped south of the border, yet it is still to receive proper consideration in Scotland. Robert Brown may want to elaborate on that issue in his speech, in the context of citizens advice bureaux.
The SNP agrees with the SCVO that more thought should be given to the changing children's services fund—the specific role of which we hope the Executive will soon clarify—to the development of child care services and to community empowerment funding. As the minister will know, an uneasy feeling remains throughout the voluntary sector that real empowerment is still elusive, with resources remaining tightly controlled by the Executive through local government, social inclusion partnerships and so on. I am sure that the minister will agree that that issue continues to vex the voluntary sector, which seeks genuine community empowerment. I am pleased that the secondment that the minister mentioned will work towards addressing that.
Members will recall a rather heated debate last spring on the phasing-out of relief from water and sewerage charges for charitable bodies. During that debate, members from all parties raised concerns regarding the impact that that could have not only on small and fragile organisations, but on larger groupings that may have to cut staff as a result. In May, the Executive announced the postponement of the phasing-in of its policy until April 2002, but 40 per cent of reliefs will be withdrawn in the first year, which will cause hardship.
Even if the Executive introduced a new, more targeted relief scheme, as suggested by the Transport and the Environment Committee, the overall loss to the sector would be considerable. We could argue about statistics—for example, the withdrawal of relief would cost the voluntary sector £4 million in the first year according to the Deputy Minister for the Environment and Rural Development, compared with £54 million according to my colleague Richard Lochhead—but whoever is right, the withdrawal of relief will have an adverse impact, which could outweigh the additional support that the minister has recently allocated to the sector. Therefore, the SNP endorses the view of the Scottish Charity Law Review Commission that Scottish charities should receive at least 80 per cent relief from water and sewerage charges.
The SNP also shares concerns about the role of the national lottery. The UK Government is funding more and more statutory bodies via that route, which will undoubtedly impact on the voluntary sector; for example, the community fund is set to decline. Although the lottery is a reserved matter, the Parliament must develop a role in holding national lottery funding distribution bodies to account.
I am sure that this afternoon's debate will be positive. However, everything is not quite rosy and much remains to be done. I urge members to acknowledge that fact by supporting the amendment in my name.
I move amendment S1M-2245.1, to leave out from "the commitment" to end and insert:
"additional direct funding, while acknowledging that many issues such as transaction costs, consistency, sustainability, leadership, core and statutory funding and the adverse impact of planned phased removal of water reliefs from charitable organisations remain to be addressed."
I am pleased to make the opening speech for the Conservatives in this timely debate on the voluntary sector. It is my first opportunity to speak from our front bench on social justice issues and I look forward to working and debating with colleagues, the Minister for Social Justice and her deputy.
I had hoped that the change in my portfolio responsibility would mean putting some distance between me and motions that are full of self-congratulatory pats on the back and about how wonderful the Executive is. However, that was not to be. The minister has set before us a motion that exhorts us to recognise
"the important role of the voluntary sector in Scottish society"
and encourages us to endorse
"the progress made by the Executive in its commitment to working in partnership with the sector".
On behalf of my party, I am happy to agree that the voluntary sector plays an enormous part in Scottish society, but the amendment in Mr Aitken's name urges the Executive to allow
"a more independent role for the voluntary sector in future."
Members would not expect a signal that we on the Tory benches have no concerns that we wish to express or observations on which the minister might usefully reflect. She should think of what I am about to say as helpful suggestions, offered in a spirit of encouragement.
It is difficult to get a perspective on how important the voluntary sector is, but we know that it is undoubtedly the fastest growing area of employment in Europe and that that trend is likely to continue. As the minister mentioned, there are 44,000 organisations with 100,000 paid staff and up to 500,000 regular volunteers. That is to say nothing of the income, which is estimated to be between £1.6 billion and £2 billion a year.
The voluntary sector covers a huge and diverse range of interests, including economic and community development, education and training, campaigning and advocacy, culture and recreation, health, environment, housing and child care. There is barely an area of our lives that the voluntary sector does not touch. All the organisations have a general definition, in that they are non-profit distributing—which is, in itself, an interesting facet—non-statutory and autonomous and may be charitable. The autonomous and non-statutory nature of the organisations is highly prized by the volunteers who give their time and effort to support them. Despite the amount of funding from Government and local authority sources, that independence entitles the voluntary sector to make critical observations. As I have said, critical observation can sometimes help to channel one's vision.
SPICe has produced an excellent briefing, which shows the sources of funding: loan finance provides 9 per cent; grant-making trusts provide 6 per cent; trading rents and investments provide 30 per cent; the public sector provides 26 per cent; the national lottery provides 7 per cent; and donations provide 22 per cent. Not all voluntary sector organisations get their money from the same sources or in the same ratio and finding out how much goes to whom is like asking about the length of a piece of string. Funding varies from organisation to organisation.
What gives rise to concern is the fact that the overall contents of the piggy bank remain the same and are probably decreasing. That gives the lie to the Executive's proclamation that it is committed to the sector through its increased resourcing. If the Executive views the voluntary sector as a crucial social partner, why are there increasing calls from organisations for further resources? The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has identified some of the problems—the minister and Kenny Gibson commented on them. They include: transaction costs; unsustainability and the cocktail approach to funding, which reeks of the reinvention of the wheel and, sometimes, of job creation; failure to agree on the dimensions and purpose of core funding; and, subsequently, a focus on projects alone. I enjoyed Kenny Gibson's definition of that a great deal. It was wonderful.
I did not dream up those problems. They are to be found in the briefing for today's debate prepared by the SCVO as it awaits the outcome of the consultation by the voluntary issues unit. If the minister will not listen to my entreaties to let the voluntary sector be her guide, I ask her to listen to the SCVO, whose members, as she pointed out, are at the sharp end.
I know that MSPs' time is limited and that, if there were 25 hours in a day and eight days in a week, we would all like to donate more time to charities and organisations that have a special place in our hearts. We have all had the opportunity to be VIP volunteers—some of us for several organisations—and I will wager that, on all of our guest appearances, we heard tales of a shortage of provision and of a lack of dedicated funding. Our job is to raise awareness and see for ourselves the work that is being done week in and week out.
My most recent experience of VIP volunteering was in the lunchtime cafe at the Morven House day centre project in Kilmarnock. That was on 1 June. I cooked, cleaned and waitressed—it was a bit like being a housewife—not just for the centre's clients, but for the volunteer staff. The work was intense and I confess that, at the end of the shift, I was glowing. That cafe could run seven days a week given the opportunity.
I read with interest the Executive's press release of 4 September, which announced a £39 million cash bonanza. The image of the minister playing the parts of Little Joe, Hoss and Paw Cartwright, weighed down with saddlebags of money from the Carson City Bank, ably supported by the deputy minister in the role of Miss Kitty, was a delight.
I regret that I am from a different generation to Mrs McIntosh and so I am not picking up the references that she is making.
Some of the old stuff was broadcast on satellite. I do not recall the theme tune for "Bonanza" too clearly myself, but there is a prize for the person who can remember it.
Where is John Young?
He is probably back in the office somewhere.
Although the latest announcement may be the biggest ever allocation of direct funding to voluntary groups, we must be concerned about the squeeze on council budgets, which has frozen or reduced grants to voluntary groups in a number of areas over recent years.
We should also be concerned about the reduction in charitable giving due to the national lottery. I ask members whether they remember the jackpots that there used to be as we waited with bated breath for Lancelot or Guinevere to throw up the numbers that were on our tickets. Now we wait for a roll-over before we part with our cash. Anyone can see that charitable giving is down. Perhaps colleagues will return to that point later in the debate.
The Executive offers pockets of money and—in the interests of balance—big wedges of money for its pet projects. I say to the minister that that reeks of control freakery gone mad.
Although the Scottish compact is an agreement between the Government and the voluntary sector, its prime motivation seems to be for the Executive to have control to target Government priorities. I am not saying that the Executive and the voluntary sector do not have a lot of shared goals—of course they do—but that marriage of ideals is likely to end up on the rocks if the Executive's emphasis on its priorities leads to loss of independence for the voluntary sector, which will be directed by Government under contract, rather than by its own principles of channelling funding—
Wind up, please.
Will the member give way?
I cannot give way, as I am in my last minute. I am sorry.
Is what Mrs McIntosh says the view of the voluntary sector?
Carry on please, Mrs McIntosh. You are winding up.
It is the view of the voluntary sector. Further confirmation of that view comes from a senior committee of the Parliament. The Finance Committee stated:
"The emphasis on meeting the Executive's priorities leads to voluntary organisations distorting their work and organisation in fact or appearance, to make it appear that they are meeting these priorities."
Such concerns are not new. As long ago as 1998, Neil McIntosh—he is no relation of mine—then convener of the SCVO, wrote in the SCVO's annual report:
"Of course we need to be aware of the dangers of loss of individual identity—what makes the voluntary sector special is its diversity and pluralism which do much to enrich our society."
We are now full circle. The voluntary sector values its independence and it likes to be able to respond quickly to needs rather than wait for the lumbering involvement of Government.
Other members will develop those thoughts further, but I ask members to support the amendment in Mr Aitken's name and allow a more independent role for the voluntary sector in future.
I move amendment S1M-2245.2, to leave out from "and welcomes" to end and insert:
"regrets the Executive's use of funding mechanisms to direct the work of the voluntary sector and urges the Executive to allow a more independent role for the voluntary sector in future."
I hesitate to follow in the footsteps of Lyndsay McIntosh, who has given an inimitable view of the problems of the voluntary sector.
To be more serious, there can be little doubt that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have been far more supportive of and engaged with the voluntary sector than any Government or Parliament before us. I do not make those rather extravagant claims lightly. Members share with the voluntary sector many things, such as a belief in the value of public service and a welcome for the invaluable role of the voluntary sector throughout Scottish society and, as the minister said, in major contributions to policy. We also share a recognition that organisations outwith and independent of Government can not only provide the human touch, but relate in ways that are accepted by and relevant to the situations of people who are in various forms of need.
We have had many debates on the voluntary sector in the Parliament. Those debates have acknowledged that Scotland would be a much poorer place without the 40,000 voluntary groups and the work of the 500,000 regular volunteers. Those are the figures for the SCVO. For some reason the Scottish Executive consultation document "Review of Funding for the Voluntary Sector" talks about 700,000 volunteers. I hope that we have not lost 200,000 since the document was produced in April.
The truth, more seriously, is that all those figures are estimates and they may well be an understatement of the true extent of volunteer activity in Scotland. The Scottish Executive has done much to sharpen the principles of its support for the voluntary sector and to increase the level of available funding. I will not rehearse the minister's arguments again. I agree with them all.
I do not think that the debate is all that suitable for party-political motions. It is perhaps slightly regrettable that we have two amendments to the motion before us today. I was particularly intrigued by the SNP amendment, which did not appear to represent either SNP policy or a commitment to go about things differently. In fact it is a straight lift out of the SCVO briefing to which we referred earlier.
Does the member accept that if the coalition Executive is more than willing to consult and take the voluntary sector on to working groups and task forces and to increase participation, it is perfectly acceptable for the Opposition to consult the voluntary sector?
Indeed, I accept that entirely. However, the issue is the use of that consultation in terms of the debate—it is as if the Opposition is putting some sort of alternative on show. The fact is that the issue should be viewed more positively because we are at a milestone for the voluntary sector. We have the local councils for voluntary service now in place throughout Scotland as well as volunteer development agencies. The Executive has gone over to three-year funding, charity law is to be modernised, and the SCRO—Scottish Criminal Record Office—checks funding issue is resolved.
The Scottish compact has recognised in principle, and increasingly in practice nationally, the independent role of the sector. I pay tribute to the personal commitment of the ministers in that regard. Work has to be done in a number of areas to build on that. We cannot get away from the problem of core funding. The whole chamber would accept that too much time is wasted by government—largely local government—and by voluntary groups in putting together packages for funding. That is a skilled task, which often requires the expertise of experienced fundraisers.
Many important organisations are still not funded by local authorities on a three-year basis. Often there is little recognition that employees in the voluntary sector are not volunteers—they earn their livings and they feed their families. That is an important point. There needs to be adequate provision for pensions, for appropriate gradings and for funding the higher cost of a long-serving employee. That cannot be spread across other activities in an organisation with only one or two employees.
We need to recognise, as Executive officials did—to their credit—when they gave evidence to the Social Justice Committee last week, that although innovation is good, it is not always possible to churn over the projects. Lyndsay McIntosh and Kenny Gibson touched on that. There is a place for capacity building and for weeding out those projects that do not work from those that do.
There is also undoubtedly a need for stable and reliable core funding, which is extremely tricky to bring about. There has got to be some sort of independent mechanism, perhaps standing slightly outside the local authorities, for doing part of the work of deciding which projects are good and which are bad and for deciding the levels at which they are funded for some of the major bodies.
I am slightly concerned at the implications of the statement made by one of the Scottish Executive officials to the Social Justice Committee last week. He said:
"There is a growing recognition that the voluntary sector is a commercial sector in many ways and ought to be capable of finding solutions that are more commercial for some of its funding problems."—[Official Report, Social Justice Committee, 19 September 2001; c 2516.]
I do not disagree with that, so far as it goes. However, there is a limit to that—it does not apply to many sorts of voluntary groups. We must beware of creating a sort of voluntary sector public finance initiative philosophy, because the resources derived from the private sector in various ways, or even, in some other ways, from public sector paying through charging are not illimitable and do not necessarily apply in all sectors.
The other milestone area, which comes back to Kenny Gibson's prediction, is the potential for an effective, accessible and adequate national advice service on debt and housing matters in particular. That is a vital priority because of the implications of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 and of the diligence report, "Striking the Balance", which the Parliament will consider shortly. In my view, it is time to place a statutory duty on local authorities to provide independent advice and, more important, to fund such services appropriately. I welcome the steps that the Executive has taken in that direction.
Kenny Gibson touched on the issue of the DSS forms and the resulting pressures on people to visit CABx for advice and assistance. Of course that is why CABx exist, but they also deal with other activities such as eviction notices. In the past financial year, CABx dealt with about £60 million-worth of debt advice, seeing about 140,000 clients and obtaining about £5 million-worth of additional benefits. I am talking about additional benefits that have been identified and I probably understated the total. The work of CABx and other agencies, such as money advice agencies, is simply irreplaceable.
The demands on existing projects will grow substantially. I do not know whether ministers have costed the extent of those extra demands, but I urge them to examine urgently the establishment of a national debt advice network and to agree an adequate level of resource—perhaps through a system of joint funding with local government—in order to make such a network a reality. There may be a case for an independent commission—similar to Malcolm Chisholm's care development group—to establish the extent of need and the resources required to meet that need. Irrespective of how the Executive does so, it must link need with the provision of resources.
The independence of the voluntary sector will be tested most effectively at the local level, where the concerns to which Lyndsay McIntosh referred echo more strongly than they do nationally. Local authorities have their own funding pressures and may not have the sophisticated approach that has been taken by Scottish Executive ministers.
There is no easy solution, but perhaps there is scope for more funding. For example, the Department of Trade and Industry provides funds to Citizens Advice Scotland to allow a mechanism under which the centre can encourage local authorities to enter into partnership. There may be a case for an independently funded voluntary sector trust.
Those important issues are worthy of more long-term consideration than we are able to give them today. It is important that, irrespective of political philosophy or party view, members across the chamber recognise the significance of the voluntary sector. I pay tribute to the Executive, which has gone further than others before it in supporting the voluntary sector. Let us, in partnership, build on that work, move forward and make the 21st century a milestone for the achievements of the voluntary sector.
We move to the open part of the debate. As a large number of members wish to speak, I ask those who are called to limit their speeches to fewer than four minutes.
The facts and figures about the third sector are almost common knowledge. Certainly, most members are aware of the size and scope of the voluntary sector in Scotland and of the level of finance that is attached to it. Most members also have a deep appreciation of the important role that the third sector plays in nurturing and sustaining all aspects of life in Scotland.
That level of awareness is testament to the significant impact of devolution on involving civic Scotland in the process of government. The voluntary sector in Scotland has gained a level of involvement and influence that would not have been possible at Westminster. However, we must not be complacent. We must work continuously to ensure that support for our voluntary sector remains a priority.
That is why I welcome the Scottish Executive's commitment to increase direct funding to the sector. As the minister said, in 1998-99, the Scottish Executive funded the voluntary sector to the tune of £23 million. That sum increased to £39 million in this financial year. Much of that additional funding has gone, rightly, into the development of the infrastructure of the voluntary sector, ensuring that Scotland has a national network of councils for voluntary service and contributing to the development of the SCVO web portal.
It is also right that other additional funding has gone into ensuring that voluntary organisations are not financially damaged by an issue that exercised many members: the need to carry out SCRO checks on volunteers. Ensuring the safety of children and vulnerable adults who come into contact with volunteers is a priority—one that is shared by the voluntary sector and the Executive. I especially welcome the minister's announcement that Volunteer Development Scotland will become the central registered body for the processing of applications for criminal record checks. It seems eminently sensible to place that responsibility on an organisation that understands volunteering in Scotland at every level.
The voluntary sector is at the heart of many of our debates, but it is also an important and influential partner in the development of all areas of policy and legislation. From my experience during stage 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, I know that voluntary organisations such as Shelter Scotland and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations played a vital part in the development of housing legislation. They were able to bring a high level of expertise and, at the same time, a sound knowledge of how legislation would impact at grass-roots level. Other voluntary organisations have been equally influential in the development of other pieces of Scottish legislation.
However, this Parliament still needs to address some voluntary sector issues. The complexity and variance of statutory funding mechanisms can be a real barrier to sustaining many voluntary organisations. It is important that the provision of funding should be seen as an opportunity for developing responsive services rather than as a constraint. It is also important that large funding bodies such as the national lottery should complement our specific social justice aims.
I am pleased to support the Executive's motion. The creation of the Scottish Parliament, with its Labour-led Executive, has already begun to deliver for the voluntary sector in Scotland. That delivery is evident in the creation and implementation of the voluntary sector compact; it is evident in the network of CABx across Scotland; it is evident in the active community strategy; and it is evident in the increased funding over the past few years. Most of all, it is evident in the strength of the voluntary sector's voice in Scotland. At long last, it is being given the recognition that it deserves.
I want to pay tribute to the volunteers from Scotland who are playing a notable part in the fight against world poverty and, thereby, against terrorism. They are the Scotsmen and Scotswomen who are working in the relief and development agencies around the world on behalf of the poorest of the poor—the billion people who live, every day, below the poverty line and who are so easily attracted, through lack of hope and lack of food, to false gods.
People have been hurt this week. I think of former colleagues who are working in Taliban areas in Afghanistan on breast-feeding programmes and mother-and-baby programmes—they have been pulled out for their own safety. I think of water engineers whom I know in the Horn of Africa—again, pulled home for their own safety. I think of a dear, sweet Norwegian friend who has devoted all his life to making prostheses for young victims of land mines—he has been pulled back to Norway for his own safety. One of those people said to me last night that, if there is to be infinite justice, there must also be boundless mercy.
We in Scotland play our part. In the Parliament we have a cross-party group involving 40 international development and relief agencies. They do extraordinary work: microcredit in Uzbekistan; reforestation in Africa; clean water programmes for mothers and babies; fish farming in areas that are deprived of food—the list is infinite.
Last night, under the patronage of the Princess Royal in Edinburgh Castle, was launched the BESO Scotland strategy—the British Executive Service Overseas Scotland strategy—which involves the entire business community in Scotland in exporting their skills, as volunteers, to areas of need and, especially, to areas in accession states in eastern and central Europe. Two ordinary Scots were quite remarkable. One was Margaret Dryden, a primary teacher. Virtually single-handedly, she revitalised the whole primary school system in Douala in Cameroon, after which she went on to do the same in Kirovohrad in central Ukraine. The other was the remarkable Joe Tarnowski from St Andrews who, at the age of 78, has just completed his 43rd mission to Poland to help to restructure local companies and local government.
We have a part to play in this. I know that this issue is a reserved matter. I pay the highest tribute to Clare Short, because she properly has focused British international relief on the support of the poorest of the poor. I pay tribute also to George Foulkes when he was in his previous job, when he was Clare Short's deputy. In August 1999, he called for much closer twinning between the voluntary sector in Scotland and the voluntary sector in countries overseas. One or two of the steps that he called for we have outlined already. We have a development group, we are working on development education, and there is a specific network—the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland—of the agencies that are working in Scotland. But much more has to be done.
I throw a few ideas to the Minister for Social Justice and the Deputy Minister for Social Justice. Frankly, if they can do Mothers Against Drugs in Alloa and Cranhill, they can help to do it in Narva. If they can do clean water programmes here, they can do them in Africa. If they can do meals on wheels in our multistoreys where the lifts do not work, they can do them in eastern Europe. If they can do sex education in Scotland, they can do it in some of the emergent states of eastern and central Europe. If they can do deaf-blind surveys in Scotland, they can export them to other parts of the world. They can provide special help to the poorest of the poor, because I know who the poorest person in the world is—it is a young woman amputee. From my experience, such people are never released from camps run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other organisations. We could take some of those people here.
I hope that the Minister for Social Justice will reply to a recent letter that she received from Paul Chitnis, the chief executive of NIDOS, in which he said:
"it was suggested that I request a meeting with you so that I can tell you more about our work and discuss ways in which the Executive might support the Network."
I hope that the minister will agree to that, and I hope that she will take one or two members of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on international development. She may just have a word with her colleague Jack McConnell so that when he publishes his external affairs policy, he encourages the efforts of Scots relief and voluntary agencies as part of that effort.
I congratulate George Reid on his speech, which puts some of today's debate into a world perspective, and brings a sense of reality to our discussion.
I speak today as a father who willingly and without strings supported his daughter's wedding on Saturday—a voluntary but expensive activity. The Deputy Minister for Social Justice may raise her eyebrows and wonder what is coming next, but there is a moral to the story, which is that apart from giving my daughter away, my contribution was to sign the cheque. What I did not do was put in place a bureaucracy that interfered with her freedom and independence to organise her wedding.
The Deputy Minister for Social Justice may know what I am about to say, which is that I agree with most people that our Scottish volunteers are unsung heroes. They work in every community and they add to the quality of life for so many. We cannot quantify how much they do in our society.
Community implies the coming together of people with a common interest or a shared location, and it only works when people have the freedom to join together to work for the common good, while ensuring that no one is left out. That is the sentiment behind my colleague Bill Aitken's amendment. We Conservatives want to see a set of strong and vibrant communities doing many things for themselves in creative and locally focused ways. The problem is that the Labour Government over the past four years has taken away the freedom of the voluntary sector to do what it does best, which is to organise locally and nationally to meet perceived need in the way that it thinks it should go about doing so.
We see a trend towards over-regulation and direction, despite the warm words of the Minister for Social Justice earlier. In fact, in some areas the Government could be accused of seeking to provide services on the cheap through the way that it directs the voluntary sector. I have no difficulty with a trained and resourced voluntary sector providing subcontracted services when that is the best way to deliver them, but allowing the sector to do the jobs in the way that it would like to do them is much better than the heavy-handed approach that we see.
The voluntary sector was robbed when lottery funding was directed from good works to supporting core, centrally delivered services that used to be delivered from taxation. The increased burden on UK taxpayers of more than £1,500 per person has reduced their ability to donate to charity. That reduction is shown in the contribution of the public to the national lottery, which is down from £411 million in 1996 to around £300 million today.
The double hit for the rest of the community was the increase in taxation under the Government. Again, that reduces people's ability to give to charity. Many of the Government's actions have hit the voluntary sector directly by reducing people's ability to contribute and adding to running costs.
Some members have talked about overburdening bureaucratic costs and the worries and work of people that have to sign so many forms and agree with so many agencies to do a simple task. We must address that issue.
Other members have mentioned today the effect of water rates on the charity sector. I call on the Scottish Executive to continue with full water rates relief until the water industry bill passes through the Parliament's committees and comes to the chamber. It is to be hoped that that bill will provide some support to the voluntary sector.
Others have mentioned today the squeeze on the central direction of council budgets. In many cases, that has frozen or reduced grants to voluntary groups.
Lyndsay McIntosh mentioned the loss of lottery funds to the new opportunities fund. There is a distortion—which I have mentioned in a previous debate—in the separation of capital from revenue funding. It is time that we move towards abandoning that fund, but only after current projects are allowed to complete.
The chancellor has hit charities hard. Advance corporation tax credits have been removed. There is a great list of things that must be done by the Government to solve some of the problems that charities face today. I welcome the minister's offer to contribute to the payment of the police's checking system charge. I have argued strongly for that in the chamber and the minister has listened.
I do not argue about the fact that the Executive is trying to move forward. However, it has to pay more than just lip service to some of the things that it has said to us today. I hope that the minister in her winding-up speech will give us a real guarantee that we will see the removal of the bureaucratic burden that currently faces the voluntary sector.
I begin by expressing my support, too, for much of what the minister said in her opening speech. In rural Scotland—for example, my constituency—the voluntary sector is absolutely vital to the life-blood of many local communities, especially those in our marginalised areas. If one looks at the role of the voluntary sector in a constituency such as mine, one sees that it takes up many of the activities that one would expect to be delivered by the public sector.
The voluntary sector has taken on the public sector's role in many areas—for example, in leisure provision—and made a much better job of it than the public sector did previously. The voluntary sector provides a wide range of activities, such as leisure, advice centres—which are crucial—care groups and special needs. Many economic development activities, such as highland games, cattle shows and folk, seafood and jazz festivals, are delivered by the voluntary sector for one simple reason: to develop economic activity in the area. The activities bring visitors and tourists and provide the life-blood for many of the tourist businesses in the villages where those activities go ahead.
The voluntary sector is vital, yet there are great gaps in provision throughout rural Scotland, for example, in the provision of citizens advice bureaux. In my constituency of Argyll and Bute we currently have no such bureaux. We have two advice centres, one in Bute and one in Islay. The Islay one is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Only now do we have a proposal in front of our local council to fund CABx for the first time in Argyll and Bute. If one considers the number of towns and villages in my constituency, that is a huge gap in basic provision.
When I speak to and attempt to help the existing voluntary organisations, which are operating well, they give me the same message time after time: that, although they have to go through a bureaucratic system, capital funding is not, by and large, a big problem. The main issue that faces those organisations time after time is core funding—revenue funding. Revenue funding lacks stability. A year-on-year scramble is required to try to secure funding from the council or another public body. No simple system guarantees that an organisation will be able to access its core funding for next year. A lack of core funding creates big problems for staff, because they are not sure whether they will have a job at the end of the financial year.
I welcome much of what the Minister for Social Justice said. She recognised that we must develop stable funding packages for such organisations. We must recognise that we cannot always come up with innovative projects and that the core projects that exist deserve support and must be continued if they are to supply those vital services for communities. Simplifying the funding systems would also go a long way towards helping, because in trying to access capital—whether from rural challenge funds or myriad other funding bodies—a huge amount of resources is often used up in developing a bid, although organisations are never sure whether their bids will be successful.
I will return to Islay, to show how serious the situation can be in small communities. I mentioned the Islay and Jura advice centre, which is about to go bankrupt because it cannot secure core funding. It serves a population of 3,000. There is no benefits agency, jobcentre or other body to service that community. The only voluntary body that provides that community with advice could go out of business in the near future if it receives no funding. That is how serious the situation is.
I would like the minister to recognise that rural Scotland has special problems, especially in remote communities such as those which I represent. I wonder whether the pilot projects that the Executive proposes will involve pilot work in rural communities to ascertain whether different mechanisms need to be put in place to address rural Scotland's needs. I hope that the minister will give us some assurance on that. I know that Jackie Baillie is coming to Argyll CVS's annual general meeting on Monday night. By God, she will be pressed hard for answers to the problems that I described.
The debate allows members to pay tribute to Scotland's voluntary sector—the paid workers and the volunteers without whom many services would grind to a halt or would never have existed.
Just before the 1999 election, I was asked to address the SCVO on the voluntary sector and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. If my memory serves me well, I think that Sarah Boyack spoke for the Labour party. At that time, I worked for Shelter. I said that the voluntary sector had a huge opportunity to participate, influence and act in partnership with the Parliament and its committees.
The voluntary sector's policy development work is firmly rooted in practical concerns and action, which makes it uniquely placed to influence and inform debates, policies and legislation. I believe that the voluntary sector has done that. It is to be congratulated on engaging not only with the Executive and committees, but with MSPs of all political parties.
However—there is always a however with me—in 1999, I said that the voluntary sector had to retain its independence from the Government, regardless of the Government's political complexion. I hoped that the SNP would be the Government. Despite that, I urged the voluntary sector to retain its independence, because its primary interest is the people whom it represents and those for whom it provides services. The sector's primary interest is not simply in carrying out the latest Government initiative. It has a duty to speak out on behalf of the most vulnerable.
I was concerned when I read the suggestion in the Finance Committee report that the voluntary sector's emphasis on meeting the Executive's priorities
"leads to voluntary organisations distorting their work and organisation in fact or appearance, to make it appear that they are"
making Government priorities their priorities.
Does the member agree that what is on offer is the possibility that the priorities of the voluntary sector will become the Government's priorities and that neither the voluntary sector nor the Government should shirk away from that?
I accept Johann Lamont's point that the Government often takes on board the priorities of the voluntary sector—and so it should. We also need to acknowledge that the Government's priorities are sometimes fed through to the voluntary sector and that that is a problem.
I believe in partnership between the voluntary organisations and local government and central Government. I am in favour of complementary working. However, there is no excuse for leaving the voluntary sector to pick up the pieces that are left in the wake of budgets set by central Government and local government.
I welcome the report of the Scottish Charity Law Review Commission, which I have already mentioned. I hope that, notwithstanding the minister's response to my intervention, we move quickly to introduce a regulatory framework for charities in Scotland. That is long overdue and has simply never existed before.
Those of us who have worked in genuine organisations that particularly rely on fundraising know that there have been many scams in the past that the Scottish charities office has been absolutely unable to tackle. Such scams suggest that all charities are not quite kosher and are not quite what they claim to be. We need to take steps to root out those that are involved in scams and cons. I urge the minister to consider the time scale closely to see whether we cannot, in this first session of the Scottish Parliament, make a real difference to the charity and voluntary sector in Scotland.
I apologise to the minister for being slightly late for her speech. I regret that. I should declare two interests. I am a board member of the Prince's Scottish Youth Business Trust. I am also an ambassador for the girl guides—which may be a remarkably brave move for the girl guides.
Those two areas of activity represent spheres of operation in Scotland in which a huge mass of voluntary activity takes place to very good effect. Perhaps it is always invidious to select individual areas of activity but, as other speakers have so eloquently indicated, the voluntary activity that takes place in Scotland is the backbone of much of our community and society.
In debates such as today's and in company such as this, it is tempting to ask, "What can politicians do?" Perhaps the more important question is, "What should politicians not try to do?" I recognise that the Scottish compact with the voluntary sector is a genuine attempt to identify the respective roles of the Government and the voluntary sector and to explore the mutual effort that may exist between those two agencies.
However, although the compact contains much that I believe to be good, it reflects the extent to which politicians expect to be involved. Therein lies the rub. It seems to me that people who engage in voluntary activity do so because they want to do it. They have a personal commitment, a conviction and an interest. They want to help. They certainly do not see themselves as Government agents or deliverers of Government policy.
I suggest that that distinction is important. Where public money is used, it is right that Government takes a proper interest in what that money is funding, but in my judgment Government should not have a prescriptive role or instruct a charity or other voluntary sector organisation how to spend money. The distinction is a fine one, but it is vital.
I was heartened that the minister said that she is committed to encouraging more volunteers to take part in Scottish life. That is a worthy sentiment, which I certainly applaud. However, people will not sign up if they think that they will become invisible, indirect agents of the Government. They will be resentful—that has to be avoided at all costs. The first question that such people will ask is whether they are being used to provide services on the cheap. Many others in the chamber who are involved in voluntary activity would echo me when I say that that is a patronising and insulting charge, but it is an understandable reaction from people who look at the spread of expenditure and say, "Why am I doing this? Does the Government provide the money to me to do this only because it is a cheap way of delivering policy?"
I support the view that the voluntary sector should be as flexible and as autonomous as possible, so that it can do what it thinks it ought to do, in the best manner that it can. That is the most effective way of allowing the voluntary sector to operate.
It is impossible to consider the issue merely in the context of Scotland; we have to consider the economic regime in the United Kingdom. Where the Government can help is by making some of the financial hurdles less challenging for the voluntary sector. Many parts of the voluntary sector pay VAT—many in the chamber would ask whether that is necessary. Is there not some mechanism whereby VAT is recoverable by those payers?
When the Conservatives were in power, they introduced gift aid and payroll tax. Those may sound like innocent, unimportant initiatives, but I think that they now represent the most common mechanism whereby funds are donated to the voluntary sector. That is indicative of a fine distinction: it is one thing for the Government to have a laudable intent about what should be going on and to be prepared to make money available to assist with doing it, but it is quite another for the Government to want to become involved indirectly in the discharge of that task. It is essential that, in our efforts to improve life for the voluntary sector in Scotland, we recognise that important distinction.
I will reinforce three points that other members have made and add a point of my own.
First, I had the honour of being present at the presentation from BESO Scotland, the business volunteering organisation that George Reid mentioned. The presentations by Margaret Dryden and Jo Tarnowski were absolutely inspiring—it is a pity that they could not speak to us today.
Secondly, I reinforce the points made by George Lyon and Robert Brown on citizens advice bureaux. Along with John McAllion, Christine Grahame and other MSPs, I attended the Citizens Advice Scotland conference in Dundee last month. The part that CABx play in developing social inclusion in Scotland is absolutely crucial. It is important that the Executive listens to the points that have been made on CABx and that it gives CABx the support that they need to function securely and effectively.
Thirdly, there is the complexity of funding that Robert Brown referred to at length. My experience, from talking to small groups, is that it is still the case that, if two or three people are running a small voluntary organisation, one of them might spend most of his or her time looking for funds. That is an appalling waste of voluntary resources, as that person could be doing something else.
Finally, voluntary organisations play a crucial part in the protection and enhancement of Scotland's environment. Over the next few years, we will need further help with areas such as recycling and conserving biodiversity in Scotland—help that many voluntary groups throughout the country already provide. I would like to know whether the Executive is asking itself how to take full advantage of what the voluntary sector is offering in respect of our environment. I have asked before whether the Executive has requested a full review of the policy on the administration of landfill funds. I know that the way in which those funds are administered is bound by regulation, but it is time that those regulations were changed to allow more of the funds to go into recycling.
There is clearly a wide welcome in the chamber for the initiatives to set up councils for volunteering and for volunteering development. The key question remains: are volunteers merely the cannon fodder for salaried staff in the voluntary sector? I was encouraged to hear Jackie Baillie say that there is £39 million for the voluntary sector; that tells us just how important it is.
I found much to agree with in Annabel Goldie's comments, as she pled for diversity through the voluntary sector. We should not be afraid of voluntary agencies taking approaches that diverge not only from one another's but perhaps from those of Government and local authority agencies. We can test other approaches and provide different doors for people with different needs or different attitudes to authority to walk through, if that is what they require.
I will focus on the problems faced by unpaid agencies and their workers and I will give some specific examples from the north-east of Scotland. The Grampian Addiction Problem Service—GAPS—was originally created to respond to a perceived local need and a desire to serve the local community. Highly qualified people work for the service, but they are unpaid. The ethos is therefore to serve the local community and to put local interests first. However, such agencies find it increasingly difficult to deliver their services, because of numerous problems. A voluntary agency with no salaried staff is not an agency with no financial overheads; it will have premises, phones and computers to maintain, and a whole series of activities and expenditures that continue between projects.
There has been a reduction in local government funding. GAPS and the Buchan Alcohol Service Information Centre had funding from Aberdeenshire Council withdrawn a couple of years ago. However, the council has still found £80,000—much more than either of those services got—to create its own in-house service, which has yet to prove that it can deliver anything of particular value.
At local level, there is competition between the professionals, who want to keep control of what is going on, and the volunteers, who work in the front line to respond to people's needs. The lack of core funding is making morale drop in the voluntary sector. It is becoming increasingly difficult for voluntary agencies to sustain themselves between projects. Indeed, agencies can be diverted from providing a service to their clients because they are having to create bids for funding. That is not terribly helpful.
It is great that the Executive has lifted the direct expenditure on the voluntary sector from £23 million to £39 million but, as has been said, £10 million might have to be taken off that total for water and sewerage charges, although the introduction of those charges has been postponed.
Robert Brown made a plea for direct funding from the Executive to many local agencies. I am in two minds about that. It may or may not work, but many voluntary agencies certainly believe that it is the way forward. However, if we cannot find a way of providing core funding to ensure continuity of service, many in the voluntary sector will simply be unable to deliver services and their clients will suffer.
I welcome the minister's speech, particularly what she said about increased funding for the councils for voluntary service and volunteer development agencies. I am sorry that Lyndsay McIntosh is no longer in the chamber, because it is clear that she knows little about the voluntary sector and has little knowledge of what that sector was like under the Tories. She has clearly not spoken to the councils for voluntary service, which were better funded in areas with Tory MPs—that was the funding situation that the voluntary sector faced. The Tories' notion of the voluntary sector was a lady bountiful idea. The sector has changed—thank goodness for that.
The voluntary sector is an integral part of our society and this is our fourth debate on it. As we have heard, many volunteers are involved in the sector and there are 100,000 full-time workers. I challenge anyone to tell me of a sector in Scotland in which the workers—whether they are volunteers or paid workers—work harder or are more committed.
The councils for voluntary service play a key role in developing the infrastructure of the voluntary sector in our communities. They support the development of partnership at all levels; they are involved in training and in promoting participation and they support proactive campaigning. There are people from all classes, all ages and both genders in the voluntary sector.
We must never take the sector for granted. Sometimes, we have airy-fairy ideas of what the voluntary sector is and what it does. It is important that debates take place. The minister takes the voluntary sector seriously.
It is absolute nonsense and naive to say that, because the minister or the Executive is listening to the voluntary sector, the sector is expected to do as it is told. The voluntary sector in this country is active, independent and will not listen to any Government.
The voluntary sector is active at community level, in the local economy and in developing local exchange trading system—LETS—schemes, food schemes and credit unions. It is involved in training and education, supporting families in fighting drugs, environmental action and all aspects of our communities at different levels.
Organisations such as the Community Training and Development Unit in Falkirk—of which I am a member—take a key role in promoting links between local and national organisations. George Reid spoke on that subject. They encourage active citizens to consider political issues at local level and civic processes and they visit Parliament to listen to MSPs.
Scottish Women's Aid and the Scottish Rape Crisis Network provide support for women and their families. Such organisations work with local authorities and other agencies to build a coherent strategy to address problems. Voluntary Arts promotes the participation in the arts by young people and other groups and the development of folk, jazz and other festivals to which people go at weekends to enjoy themselves. Advocacy groups, campaigning groups, international aid and development groups all contribute to the vital work of the voluntary sector.
As I said, the voluntary sector has moved on and we should not get airy-fairy ideas that it is about nice people running jumble sales for poor people. The voluntary sector is the life and soul of Scotland.
All organisations face the issue of funding and resources, which inevitably I must talk about. Organisations say that funding—particularly from local authorities—has been static for several years and that they are trying to do more with less. I therefore welcome the minister's commitment to the voluntary sector, which will mean that it can tackle some of the obstacles in its path. In particular, I welcome the fact that the Social Justice Committee is to conduct an inquiry into the voluntary sector and will get out and listen to people. That is important—we should commend the committee for that and wish it good luck. It is important that the information that it gathers from the voluntary sector is included in the debate, but it is also important that that is not seen as the committee or the minister telling the voluntary sector what to do.
Funding consistency is needed. The voluntary sector needs to be sustainable and it needs to be encouraged to do the work that it is doing. For too long, innovation has been overemphasised. We need to deal with that. The voluntary sector cannot be expected to reinvent itself continually. Matched funding can be a nightmare and European funding can be a bigger nightmare.
We have an opportunity to work with the voluntary sector—of which we can be rightfully proud—and the minister is committed to doing so. We are in the right climate to listen to what the voluntary sector is saying and to ensure that it has the funding that it deserves.
I follow on from what Cathy Peattie said—I agree with almost all of it—by making the point that we should recognise that we sometimes play on the voluntary sector. In particular, in the area of drugs, many people do voluntary work who, in an ideal world, would be backed by professional people or have such people involved in their work. Many a time we have to say, "Thank God people are prepared to volunteer to do the work," because if they were not there, many local issues would not be addressed properly.
We have heard some excellent speeches and some poor ones, but I will not say who comes into which category. It is fair to say that the best speech—from all the parties—came from George Reid. I will add a word or two to what he said. When international events and the impact of those events at home are uppermost in everyone's minds, the international dimension to volunteering and to the voluntary sector must have top priority from the minister.
That is not a constitutional point. I know that international development is a reserved issue—although I wish that it were not—but that does not prevent us from encouraging the voluntary sector to play an international role. That humanitarian—not constitutional—point must be uppermost in our minds.
I will give two examples of situations in which we should be encouraging urgent action by the international voluntary sector. The first is what will be a substantive refugee problem on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The second is the most urgent situation in Palestine and that area of the world.
Through the voluntary sector, we have a major contribution to make and, although I recognise that the matter is reserved, I encourage the minister to do what she can to encourage, co-ordinate and facilitate voluntary working. She can make a significant contribution.
One of the great points about international affairs is that small nations that are not big power players are often trusted to do voluntary work. It is no accident that most of the secretaries-general of the United Nations come from small nations—the secretary-general could not come from America or Russia. We have a lot to contribute and we have done so down the years.
Will the member give way?
Unfortunately, I do not have time.
My other point is a more domestic one about what the minister said on the social economy review that Stephen Maxwell is carrying out. The social economy has not been mentioned much in this debate, but it has an enormous role to play, particularly in areas of multiple deprivation. In this country we think of entrepreneurship as being about profiteers or someone looking for a fast buck. However, there are many honest entrepreneurs. There are many entrepreneurs in the public sector—in education, health, transport and other areas. There is enormous scope for social entrepreneurship that is not about making a fast buck for oneself, but about serving the community. There are enterprising people who are capable of setting up and running businesses for the benefit of the whole community. I hope that the review will be positive and that action will be taken as a result of it.
There has been broad consensus among members in this debate—more or less. I have some empathy with aspects of the Tory amendment. However, I was persuaded by Conservative members' speeches not to vote for it. That is a pity, because it is important in a democratic society to ensure that the voluntary sector is not dictated to by the Labour party, by its coalition partners in the Executive, by my party or by any other party. The voluntary sector is there and the key point is that it must be independent and remain independent.
We now move to closing speeches.
Jackie Baillie started the debate by emphasising the excellent work that is being done by the voluntary sector. She said that 100,000 people are employed in the voluntary sector and highlighted that 27 per cent of adults regularly take part in voluntary work.
I emphasise the excellent work that is being done by our Labour colleagues in the ministerial team. I believe in giving credit where it is due and I congratulate the ministers on some very effective work. A comprehensive network of voluntary organisations has been set up. It is excellent that the Executive is working with the sector through the framework in the Scottish compact.
Projects are benefiting from the £39 million of funding, which is an increase of 18 per cent from last year. That is a real increase. I will give examples from my constituency. Family Mediation Grampian receives about £44,500. It aims to reduce the effect of parental separation or divorce. It helps couples to reach, after separation, negotiated agreements about residence, contact with children and other practical problems. It deals with real issues for real people.
Small projects also receive funding, for example Aberdeenshire Life Education Centre. It has received almost £4,500 to supply a mobile classroom and an educator to deliver a holistic approach to the prevention of substance abuse and to provide health education to schoolchildren. Those are two examples of the Scottish Executive helping to produce effective service delivery.
Having said that—there is always a but—I attended Gordon Rural Action recently. That organisation serves the Donside area of my constituency. Genuine concerns were expressed to the effect that funding goes to the network generally and there are worries about money not getting down to service providers. I emphasise those concerns.
I also receive observations, or complaints—call them what you will—from many organisations in my constituency, for example in Donside, Deeside and the Mearns, about too much time needing to be spent on accessing project funding. George Lyon and others have raised that point in the debate. Not enough attention is being given to core funding. Many groups, such as Gordon Rural Action, which I mentioned, and Mid-Deeside Ltd, which is a community-based company on Deeside, express that concern. I attend Gordon Rural Action's annual general meetings and they constantly tell me that core funding is a major issue for them.
I will focus on the main points that have come out of the debate. Cathy Peattie gave a first-class analysis of Lyndsay McIntosh's knowledge of the voluntary sector. I do not think that Lyndsay McIntosh was in the chamber to hear it, but I hope that she reads the Official Report tomorrow. She made some very negative comments about the Executive always indulging in backslapping and being self-congratulatory. I must say that I—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I find the Tories' constant negative amendments—such as the one that is before us today—to be the mirror image of that. The pot is calling the kettle black.
It is important to get across three points. One is the point that was made by Robert Brown about a statutory duty on local authorities to provide independent advice; that is essential. George Lyon said that there was no citizens advice bureau in his constituency; neither is there one in my constituency and that is the case in many rural areas of Scotland. A statutory duty must be put on councils in that regard.
George Reid's contribution unexpectedly and rightly opened up the debate to the role of Scots abroad in the voluntary sector. As Alex Neil said, it was the best speech of the afternoon. George Lyon concentrated on the difficulties of core funding.
The three core points are Robert Brown's point about a statutory duty to provide independent advice, George Reid's point about Scots working abroad in the voluntary sector and George Lyon's point that we must concentrate on the core funding issues.
Perhaps uncharacteristically, I agree with many of the minister's comments. Indeed, I can take issue only with her claim not to remember the cowboy series "Bonanza". When she stated that she was not of that generation, I think that she was asking us to accept a little porky pie. On the other hand, Mrs McIntosh remembers seeing only the repeats.
The debate has been fairly consensual and I do not wish to part from the combined approach that the Parliament has taken. We have heard some very good speeches from members and some good news from the Executive. First, I was pleased to hear that the long-overdue reform of charity law is well advanced and I look forward to seeing what is produced early next year. As Karen Whitefield correctly pointed out, anybody who has any connections to the voluntary sector will be pleased that the prospect of the potentially considerable damage that might have been caused by the funding of SCRO checks has been removed.
That said, the Conservatives differ from the Executive on one issue. The minister claimed—with some justification—that she has put more money into the voluntary sector. However, why has she done so? Surely the answer is that she trusts the sector to administer the funding. Having gone to that length, why does not she take the next step and allow the sector to get on with what it is good at doing, namely serving the community?
The debate takes place against the background of the justifiable pride that we can all take in the fact that 10 per cent of the Scottish population give of their time and do volunteer work. That is very beneficial. However, the minister should support that and not seek to stand in the way of and inhibit those volunteers. After all, they know best.
I ask Bill Aitken to go back and read "The Scottish Compact". One of its major aspects is an agreement that the voluntary sector must remain independent.
I have read the document and agree with much that is in it. However, at the same time, it contains an inhibition. It is implied that the Executive will control funding and that funding will be diverted along what the Executive feels to be the appropriate channels. That is not the way to run things. The people out there know what is good for their communities. For example, George Lyon told us about the good that the voluntary sector does in the islands and Stewart Stevenson dealt with the situation in the north-east. People on the ground know far better than do people sitting in Edinburgh or Glasgow about what is best for their charity or good cause. That is the route that we should go down.
If the minister wishes to help—I know that she does—she should seek other ways in which she can assist the voluntary sector. She should ask her colleagues in Westminster to examine the effects of the taxation regime on charities. Furthermore, she should examine how the lottery operates. The lottery was introduced as a simple expedient to make more money available for charities. However, as David Davidson pointed out, over the past few years lottery funds have been used more and more to fund work that would otherwise have been funded from general taxation.
Does Mr Aitken share the concern that has been expressed by several of my constituents that disproportionate amounts of national lottery funding go to better-off areas and that proportionately little money comes into deprived areas? Furthermore, would he welcome an inquiry into the matter?
That intervention raises an interesting point that was dealt with to some extent in last week's debate on the situation in Sighthill. Perhaps it is the case that certain areas should be given assistance in the preparation and lodging of lottery applications. There is a case for that, because people in better-off areas are sometimes more able to complete applications than people in areas such as that which Johann Lamont represents.
George Reid was correct: we owe a particular debt to so many people who find themselves in possible danger as a result of their volunteering. However, the debate concerns the approach that we should take to the voluntary sector. Much of what the Executive says is of benefit and we agree with it, but it should realise that the voluntary sector is best left to its own devices.
I say to Annabel Goldie that I, too, was delighted to be asked to be a guide ambassador, having never been a girl guide. I then discovered that Jamie Stone was one, which tarnished the honour a wee bit.
I most certainly was not a girl guide at any stage of my existence.
He just liked the uniform.
I would say that Linda Fabiani is having a bad hair day but for the fact that I just saw her hair at close quarters down at the new Holyrood building.
I meant that Mr Stone was a girl guide ambassador, not a girl guide.
Members have rightly paid tribute to many different volunteers from all over the country who carry out work here and abroad. I pay tribute to the volunteers who are working here on an international level, with refugees and asylum seekers who come here. I know that Jackie Baillie and Margaret Curran will meet many of those people in their new roles and that they will back me up on that. A lot of great work is going on in Sighthill and elsewhere in Scotland.
The SNP is broadly in agreement with what the Scottish Executive is trying to achieve and what it is achieving in our third sector. Anything that I say is meant in a spirit of co-operation. It is the role of the Government to put things in motion and the role of the Opposition to try to point out the shortcomings. In the creation of a better country for us all, it is also our role to point out what is likely to be problematic and to work together to find a better solution.
I make no apology to Robert Brown for quoting the SCVO—after all, the Executive looks on those people as experts in the field, which they are. That fact should be recognised. The SCVO has said that it is worried about the strategic overview of the voluntary sector. One part of the submission that it made to the Social Justice Committee concerned new approaches that have been taken in participation, planning and service development, which have had the effect of making the relationship among the voluntary sector, statutory agencies and councils less clear cut. There is concern about the way in which the Scottish Executive, local authorities and the voluntary sector are interacting and working together.
I have been told that many existing organisations in Lanarkshire feel that, although they have been assured by the Scottish Executive that the local authority has been given funding for specific projects in specific fields of voluntary work, the money is not getting through. There is a perception that, in wishing to be seen to fulfil their obligations in relation to consultation, the statutory agencies, health boards, health trusts and councils are starting to set up their own groups and are not acknowledging the views of the groups that have for many years been working at the front line.
I use the word "perception" because I do not know the reality of the situation. I raised the matter at the Social Justice Committee and was told by Executive representatives that the Scottish Executive is not monitoring whether the money that is given to local authorities is spent on the purposes for which it is given, when that money is not ring-fenced. I ask the minister and the Scottish Executive to address that.
Members mentioned voluntary organisations in relation to poverty in our country. We know about urban deprivation and rural deprivation, but I was stunned to hear George Lyon say that there is no citizens advice bureau in Argyll and Bute.
George Lyon might not be aware that Argyll and Bute Council has recently agreed to fund a citizens advice bureau. I take it that he would welcome that.
I am sure that George Lyon will thank the minister for that welcome information.
Members have spoken about the SCVO. I hope that this information is wrong—I ask the minister to correct me if it is—but I was told recently that the services within the council for voluntary services network are being given a set amount of money. I am worried that no account is taken of the areas in which those services operate.
Account is taken of the areas in which the services operate and we specifically recognised in our review of the council for voluntary services that rural areas require additional input. As a consequence of that, we have made sure that extra money is available. For example, I believe that £290,000 is being made available in the Highlands, whereas less than that is being made available in urban areas.
I would like to make a special plea for South Lanarkshire Council, which faces both urban and rural problems.
Kenny Gibson talked about the effects of legislative change on the voluntary sector. For example, he said that social security forms tell the applicant to go to a citizens advice bureau, which is difficult to do if there is none in the area.
The Executive must think strategically about the voluntary sector at every point, because its decisions and actions impact on the voluntary sector and its services. For example, although the problems relating to the SCRO checks have been sorted, we could have avoided the lobbying that took place on that if the proposal, which was worth while, had been thought through when it was introduced.
I read recently about hygiene regulations that will come into force and that will impact on the ability of soup kitchens to provide food for homeless people. I appreciate that hygiene regulations must be put in place, but the Executive must have regard for the impact that such regulations might have on the voluntary sector. I am worried that if an additional regulation is put in place without additional support, there will be less volunteering.
While the SNP broadly accepts the terms of the motion, we have a problem with the line that mentions
"the increased resourcing of the sector".
The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations believes that there is evidence to suggest that, proportionally, the overall pot of voluntary sector funding is stagnant and is probably shrinking. Given the increased expenses for water companies—the removal of water relief, for example—we must think about that.
There is nothing in the SNP amendment that has not been mentioned by almost every speaker: transaction costs; consistency; sustainability; leadership; core and direct funding; and the adverse impact of the removal of water relief. I must therefore ask ministers to consider accepting the SNP amendment in the spirit of all that has been said today.
I am pleased to be here to respond to the debate on the voluntary sector. I welcome the changes that the various parties have made in their portfolios and greet my new sparring partners.
I came to the chamber today in a consensual mood, thinking that all members would do likewise. However, after a few words from the Tories, I found myself rolling up my sleeves. In response to Bill Aitken's rather impolite comments about Jackie Baillie's age, I must say that she has asked me to confirm that she does not remember "Bonanza" at all. The proof of that is that she is an ambassador for the brownies. I am glad that that is now established.
On a more serious note, the debate has been substantial. Many points have been made that are of great importance to the voluntary sector. There have been many speeches of quality and substance throughout the debate. The speeches attempted to deal with some of our policies and I will attempt to deal with those speeches in turn.
I particularly welcome the inquiry by the Social Justice Committee, which is examining the work of the voluntary sector. We look forward to working closely with the committee on the inquiry in the coming months.
I am sure that all members are aware that, as has been said in the debate, the Executive is acting decisively by pursuing a new relationship with the voluntary sector in Scotland. Over the past two years we have seen that improved partnership work. Indeed, the Executive considers the sector to be a key social partner. That can be demonstrated on a number of fronts.
The Executive's immediate aims have been to modernise the legal, financial and infrastructure framework for the voluntary sector. We have more recently placed an increasing emphasis on the social economy in Scotland, on which Alex Neil made some important points.
As Cathy Peattie said in a strong speech, "The Scottish Compact" is an extremely valuable document for promoting a strengthened partnership between the Executive and the voluntary sector. We aim to develop the compact further as the basis on which to strengthen relationships between the sector and Executive departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. The aim is to bed down the principles of the compact throughout the public sector. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities have been active in promoting and developing local compacts and funding policies for their relationship with the sector.
As well as our commitments to the sector as set out in "The Scottish Compact", we have spelt out commitments—as Linda Fabiani was trying to encourage us to do—in our programme for government and the social justice action plan. Our commitment to take positive action to benefit the sector is even imbedded in the budget process. Those commitments form a continuing programme to provide the best environment in which the sector can develop. We do not underestimate the complexities that are involved.
I return to a significant theme of the afternoon's debate. The Executive has always respected the voluntary sector's independence and its campaigning role. I argue that the Executive has shown willingness to listen to that sector. We appreciate that there are tensions inherent in that approach—we cannot be simplistic about it—but we believe that there is more to gain than there is to lose from partnership.
I listened carefully to the speeches about and the pleas for independence for the sector from throughout the chamber. In all sincerity, there is a degree of misunderstanding. I say to Lyndsay McIntosh that we could not allow the sector to be independent even if we wanted to. It is not within our gift to bestow that independence on the voluntary sector. Our partnership with the sector does not in any way undermine its autonomy.
On the personal comparisons that David Davidson made, as a good feminist I make it absolutely clear that partnership does not mean domination. The Executive's partnership with the voluntary sector does not mean that we dominate the sector—[Interruption.]
Far too many conversations are going on. That is very unfair to the minister, who is closing the debate. I appeal to members to sit down, keep quiet and listen to what is being said.
The Executive recognises that, although we might sometimes get hurt by the voluntary sector's independence as the sector criticises us, we have more to gain than we have to lose from it. We acknowledge the pioneering role of the voluntary sector and want to facilitate that as much as possible. We recognise that the voluntary sector has prefigured a lot of what are now regarded as mainstream services, particularly in child care, but also in many other areas.
Throughout the voluntary sector, there is a willingness to recognise that it now has a receptive Government. Although it will never suspend its criticisms entirely, the sector has recognised and welcomed the reception that we have given to it because we have responded positively to major issues of concern to the sector. For instance, we have introduced a review of charity law, we meet the costs of criminal record checks on volunteers and fund the registration body and we have delayed for one more year the withdrawal of water rates relief for charities.
Points on water rates relief came up in the debate and I wish to address those. Ross Finnie announced on May 17 that the phased withdrawal of relief from a range of charitable organisations, which was to start this year, will be delayed for a year. That is to allow those who are affected some time to plan and budget. All remaining relief will be phased out by 31 March 2006. The water authorities have agreed to provide free water meters on request to the voluntary and charitable sector and are happy to provide advice on that matter.
I called on the Executive to maintain the relief until the Parliament has dealt with the proposed water services bill. What is the Executive's answer to that?
That is a matter for Ross Finnie to answer specifically. Those of us who are responsible for the voluntary sector have gone some way toward ensuring that we support the sector in trying to adjust to the change.
The Executive has made available increased resources across the board. That is well recognised. We are increasing funding for the voluntary sector infrastructure from £4 million to £10 million over our first term of office. Direct funding has risen from £23 million to £39 million annually. We have instituted myriad new developments in funding. We are strengthening the voluntary sector infrastructure. Many of those points have been made in the debate and I will not repeat them.
We recognise that much of the increased funding will go into national voluntary organisations and infrastructure and into central initiatives. The Executive's approach has been strategic. Generally speaking, Executive funding for local service delivery is available only on an exceptional basis—for instance for pilot projects—and that has been mentioned.
We expect public sector funding for local bodies normally to come from other agencies, such as local authorities, health boards, local enterprise companies and some non-departmental bodies. We have recognised—as has been said in the debate—the need to address some fundamental points. The first phase of our funding review was, crucially, to deal with the need to bring stability to the sector. Our three-year indicative funding settlements within local authorities have contributed to that.
We are now aiming, within the second phase of our review, to look for a common approach across all our funding schemes. That will take on board the points that were raised about core funding. Through our work on underfunding, we aim to reduce concern about issues such as transition costs, which Kenny Gibson mentioned.
Another aim of our funding review was to identify gaps in the funding of the voluntary sector. We have already made extra funding available, for example, to BEMIS—the Black and Ethnic Minority Infrastructure in Scotland. That is an important part of the support that we offer.
It is important that we discuss volunteering. We recognise the unsung heroes about whom many members have talked. Increasingly, volunteering is flourishing in its own right and making a difference, not only in the voluntary sector, but in public sector settings. All MSPs are well aware of that vital contribution to the fabric of local communities, to key organisations and to innovative service development. The Executive strongly supports the active communities initiative and will continue to do so.
We are strongly committed to maintaining our work in the rural sector and this year we have committed £2.6 million to the national network.
I am happy to address the points that George Reid raised, many of which were on overseas development. We strongly support his suggestions. Briefly, I say yes to those—the member will receive ministerial responses.
I am proud to be part of a Government whose first instincts were to use Britain's membership of the G8 to keep debt reduction on the agenda. I do not mean that in a party political sense. It is important that we now have a target to lift 1 billion people out of poverty by 2015.
I am being hurried to conclude. I assure the Parliament that the debate was not a cosy one for us—it was not about complacency. We have an ambitious agenda for the voluntary sector, which is a key partner that we will never dominate. The voluntary sector contributes to policy. We continue to fund it and look forward to an invigorating partnership in delivering the social justice agenda.