New Opportunities Fund
The next item of business is the debate on motion S1M-2043, in the name of Allan Wilson, on the new opportunities fund, together with two amendments to the motion. [Interruption.] Can we settle down, please.
We are a bit demob-happy this afternoon. However, I am delighted to be opening this debate on a motion that acknowledges that new opportunities funding has significant implications for devolved policy areas in Scotland. Furthermore, as the Scotland Act 1998 and the setting of policy directions recognise, Scottish ministers have a significant role to play in such funding.
Our primary purpose in initiating the debate is to raise awareness of the work of the fund in the Parliament and more widely in Scotland, and to call attention to the important consultation exercise that is currently under way on the third round of new opportunities fund initiatives.
The UK national lottery is the most successful in the world, raising more than £9.5 billion for good causes. The new opportunities fund was established in 1998 to provide lottery funding for education, health and environment projects, which will create lasting improvements to the quality of life across the UK.
The fund is allocated about a third of the moneys accruing to the national lottery fund, and through the good offices of my former colleague Sam Galbraith, Scotland receives 11.5 per cent of the available funding. That amounts to £167 million across 11 current grant programmes.
As with the other lottery distributing bodies, the fund operates its programmes to ensure that it funds only projects that are additional to current and planned expenditure. It seeks to complement funding that is available from other sources and to support strategies, plans and partnerships that are developed both nationally and locally. In common with the practice for other lottery distribution bodies, ministers determine the amount of funding that is available to the fund and give it policy directions. However, decisions on the detail of the policy directions and programmes or individual applications are a matter for the fund itself.
Does the minister regret the fact that the lottery fund will be £5 billion less than was originally estimated when Camelot bid?
We would all regret any diminution in the amount of money that was available to the Scottish Executive or the UK Parliament, which could be spent on good causes. We would all want the maximum income to be secured from the national lottery to go to those causes.
We note the fact that there is thought to be a reduction in the amount of money that is coming in. Does the minister recall that, during parliamentary debates on the national lottery, Labour members in particular insisted that funding from the lottery should not go into what were perceived as Government-funded projects? Does he feel that the new opportunities fund does that, in many ways? Does he agree that perhaps that is one reason why people are now shying away from the lottery?
No, I do not believe that to be the case. The new opportunities fund and its spending priorities are popular with the people, who want their lottery money to be spent on good causes such as health, education, sport, the environment and combating drug abuse. That policy is demonstrably popular among the Scottish people, and it is complementary to direct Executive spending in those areas.
For example, the new opportunities fund has committed £23 million over three years to a programme that is aimed at bringing all school teachers and school librarians in publicly funded schools up to a published standard of expertise in information and communications technology.
A further £23 million is available for the development of new or extended study support activities that are held outside school hours. The target has been set to allocate 50 per cent of those funds to the most deprived 15 per cent of primary schools and the most deprived 25 per cent of secondary schools.
The fund is also making £23 million available to start-up projects that provide accessible and good-quality child care outside school hours. We recently made changes to the out-of-school care programme, to encourage uptake in those disadvantaged areas and to ensure that revenue funding is available over three years to maintain the projects once the capital investment has been secured.
In health and other areas too, the new opportunities fund has already made a significant impact. Health is worst in deprived communities, and the new opportunities fund's healthy living centre initiative has the potential to make a major contribution towards improving Scotland's health and reducing health inequalities. That initiative is aimed at raising the level of health of the 20 per cent of the population who live in the most disadvantaged communities to the level of health of the rest of the Scottish population.
In that context, partnerships are essential in identifying needs and developing relevant and successful centres. To date, 12 successful Scottish healthy living centres have been created through the initiative and, from discussions with those who run the new opportunities fund last week, I understand that the rest of the programme will be oversubscribed.
The second round of funding for health saw the development of the living with cancer programme. Cancer is a major cause of morbidity, mortality and bereavement among the Scottish population. I suspect that all of us have lost somebody through that disease. Four out of 10 people develop cancer, which is why cancer is one of the top priorities for the Scottish Executive and for the national health service in Scotland.
The Scottish cancer group has, for the past three years, worked with the new opportunities fund to develop a cancer strategy for Scotland. That will be published next month and will set out the Executive's strategy to ensure better awareness and prevention of the disease as well as earlier diagnosis and better, faster treatment of cancer. I say to Phil Gallie that that is what the people of Scotland want their lottery money to be used for.
One of the primary objectives that I have set myself in my new post in the short time that I have been in it is to ensure that the benefits of lottery money are felt throughout the country. Some areas that have suffered the worst effects of economic and social deprivation have seen all too few of those benefits. I intend to ensure that those areas are prioritised in the directions that we give.
It is important to stress that the focus on selected areas will not mean that other areas are now relegated and that targeting money at specific areas under the new initiative will not mean simply throwing money at them and lowering standards. However, if the medium amount from all lottery distributors is £77 a head, it cannot be right that certain areas receive only £28 a head.
I cannot agree more with what the minister says about the fact that disadvantaged areas are losing out on new opportunities fund money and money from other sources. However, there is a lack of support given to projects when applications for funding are being made. What does the Executive intend to do to support the organisations in developing programmes to enable them to get grants?
Yesterday, I issued a statement on the new directions that have been given to the community fund to ensure that money is targeted on those areas that need it most. Those policies will be followed across the UK and, importantly, will ensure that we can build the capacity in deprived communities that will enable those communities to apply for funds so that they can compete with institutions such as private schools that benefited from the Conservative party's years in power.
The UK Government, in conjunction with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, consulted widely last year on the priorities of the third round of new opportunities fund initiatives. Within a common set of overall initiatives, the proposals set out in that consultation paper took account of differing priorities of each of the four Administrations. This country's priorities were: physical education and sport in schools; reducing the burden of coronary heart disease, stroke and cancer care; palliative care; child care; transforming communities; and community drugs rehabilitation. I am pleased to say that the new opportunities fund will be joining the existing awards for all scheme in Scotland.
Members will forgive me if I concentrate on PE and sport in schools, as it is my primary responsibility. There has been a warm welcome for the proposal to give high priority to developing facilities for sports in schools that can be used by young people and the community more generally.
I submit that that is wholly in tune with the Scottish Executive's policy of encouraging community use of school-based facilities and the building of closer links between schools and their local communities, including local sports clubs. That is central to putting in place the pathways that will encourage young people to remain actively involved in sport as they leave school and progress through adulthood. We are committed to providing young people with attractive alternatives to criminal and other anti-social behaviour. Some of the funding will be used to support sports-based projects aimed at diverting young people away from such activity as well as for out-of-hours sporting and cultural activity.
The other third-round initiatives build on the significant impact that the new opportunities fund has made. I welcome the £10 million that the fund has made available to provide new kinds of community-based rehabilitation for people who have misused drugs, the £32 million that has been given to projects that aim to reduce the burden of coronary heart disease, stroke and cancer care and the £5.25 million that has been invested in projects that aim to expand community sector waste reuse, recycling and composting.
As I mentioned earlier, those involved in the new opportunities fund are consulting widely on the detailed arrangements—I hope that all members have a copy of the consultation document. I encourage every organisation, MSP and individual with an interest to respond positively to the consultation paper before the closing date of 3 September.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the New Opportunities Fund's commitment to social inclusion, equality and diversity and to working in partnership with other agencies and organisations at a national and local level; endorses the priorities identified by the Scottish Executive for the third round of initiatives; welcomes the Fund's intention to join the small-scale grants Awards for All scheme in Scotland; further welcomes the contribution which New Opportunities Fund funding will make to reinvigorating sport in schools, increasing community use of school based sports facilities and providing attractive alternatives for young people to criminal and anti-social behaviour, and notes with approval that the Fund is currently consulting widely on the detailed arrangements for delivering these initiatives.
I welcome many of the grants that have been made and many of the projects that have emerged. Although in my speech I will be critical of the Executive's policy and will point out some of the difficulties in that policy, I make it clearly understood that I do so in the context of welcoming the money and its effect.
For example, I notice from the latest announcements that North Ayrshire Council has received £227,000 to extend the work of the art school project to primary school children in rural areas. The activities will include creative arts, drama, music and dance workshops. That will make a big contribution to young people in North Ayrshire. Equally, I note that the Dunoon new community schools project—I declare an interest in that as my wife teaches in the community school in Dunoon—has received £20,000 to extend and enhance summer school provision.
Those grants are to be welcomed. However, there are problems in the Executive's motion and policy. This has been a long year in Parliament and we draw to the close of it.
It is only long when Mike Russell is speaking.
I shall ignore that remark.
There is one rather unusual element in this afternoon's debate: we see Allan Wilson cast in heroic mould in relation to the constitution of this country. In The Herald on Monday, there was a report of an attack by Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who is apparently a Labour front bencher, on what the Scottish Parliament can discuss. Lord McIntosh made it clear that the London Government had not yet decided whether there should be a reduction in the number of MSPs. A source was quoted as saying:
"Although the Scottish Parliament is perfectly entitled to debate reserved matters and Westminster, devolved matters, the fact is, MPs have never debated devolved issues while Holyrood has so far held 16 debates on reserved matters".
The point of that was to say that MSPs were wasting their time and could not be overworked. The debate that the source used as an example was:
"tomorrow they are due to debate the new opportunities fund."
I am glad that Allan Wilson is challenging the constitutional settlement radically, although I suspect that the Labour members will not be happy, because it might result in many of them having to squabble like ferrets in a sack for a reduced number of seats. I congratulate him on bringing the debate to the chamber.
However, the motion is disappointing and flawed. The primary critic of the motion is not the Scottish National Party; it is the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. In its briefing, the SCVO says:
"SCVO believes the structure and accountability of the NOF currently fails to take adequate account of the Scottish context, leading to ineffective use of significant funds. It is also subject to obvious incorporation into Government agendas leading to rapid erosion of the principle of additionality."
The main voluntary organisation in Scotland is making the point that the Government's motion is deeply flawed.
Does Michael Russell also agree with the SCVO when it says that the reasons for the apparently arbitrary nature of delegation of the third-round initiatives are unexplained and that some, notably the £87 million for sport, are highly questionable? Does Michael Russell agree that the £87 million that has been allocated to community sport and school sport is highly questionable?
I shall come to school sport in just a minute and the minister will discover exactly what my views are, but I want to develop my argument first.
The reality is that, according to the SCVO and many others, the method by which the funds are disbursed and scrutinised in Scotland is flawed. It is flawed because there is no legislative responsibility for the funds in Scotland and the Scottish Executive is consulted by grace and favour. Many people argue that the right way for Scotland to be involved in the new opportunities fund is to have a Scottish committee—that is the SCVO's view—and to ensure that the Scottish Executive is formally involved in the process, not involved on a grace-and-favour basis. That is the basis on which the Executive is involved.
The minister wanted to talk about examples and about sport in schools. It is interesting to note the opinion of the Scottish Sports Association on the example that the minister used about money for sport in Scotland and in schools. The SSA said, in its response to the minister, that the programme that he is proposing
"would be warmly welcomed but this alone will not deliver the desired outcomes"
and that there should be a joined-up approach that incorporated
"broader national and sport specific strategies in place or under development by sportscotland, the governing bodies and local agencies."
That is necessary for the initiative to work.
If the minister will allow me, I will proceed a bit further on my point about sport. The situation is similar with school sport co-ordinators. That shows a fascinating set of difficulties that are inherent in the motion.
The first difficulty is that experienced by Aberdeenshire Council, for instance, in implementing the sports co-ordinators, as it does not have the resources to do so. The same programme is being supported south of the border by the new opportunities fund to the extent of 50 per cent.
That example illustrates something else. In that instance, money is going from the new opportunities fund towards Government initiatives rather than towards additional activity. I presume that the Tory amendment aims to make that point. Money is going to shore up Government initiatives, not additional activity. The SCVO is worried about that too.
The new opportunities funding then becomes the underpinning of Government schemes in the short term, rather than allowing a diversity of new schemes to emerge across the spectrum. I am not saying that that is always the case, but there is sufficient worry in the voluntary sector that that is happening quite often for the Executive to have recognised that in its motion, as I hoped that it would. However, it does not; indeed, it trumpets what is taking place.
I will put the same question to Mike Russell again. Having listened to his dissertation on funding priorities, I ask whether he agrees with the Scottish Schoolsport Federation, which welcomes the £87 million that is being invested in school and community sport, or whether he agrees with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, which does not.
I have made it absolutely clear that I welcome the investment in sport, whether it is £87 million, £80 million or £90 million. However, the minister will have to take on board the fact that many concerns have been raised by a range of organisations, to the effect that the principle of additionality is being eroded, that there is an underpinning of Government schemes and that the mechanisms that are being used to deliver the money in Scotland are neither accountable nor transparent.
My amendment is designed to say that we heartily welcome investment in all sorts of things in Scotland. However, the structure for the good investment that takes place is wrong. The question of how to use the proceeds of the national lottery in Scotland—and that of the proper interface between the Parliament and the people of Scotland, with that money being available to voluntary and community groups—has not yet been answered. I think, and hope, that our amendment points the way to find the answers.
I move amendment S1M-2043.1, to leave out from "endorses" to first "initiatives" and insert:
"notes that the priorities identified by the Scottish Executive are merely consultative and not binding on the New Opportunities Fund; believes that on matters devolved to the Parliament, the New Opportunities Fund should take its instructions from the Scottish Executive and not from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport;"
I will begin by making a general point in relation to national lottery funding, and I seek the minister's undertaking that he is doing all that he can in conjunction with Her Majesty's Government to modify the lottery rules so as to alter the balance between the capital and revenue funding that currently make up lottery funding.
In my view, too much money is allocated on the basis that it facilitates capital projects. Without money to fund the operation and maintenance of the facilities concerned, they are not able to continue operating. That issue has been raised by various members in the chamber, particularly in the context of the fact that it is not possible to fund swimming pools once they have been constructed.
That is a particular problem in rural areas, for example in Dumfries and Galloway, where there is never likely to be the throughput of bodies to make an individual facility pay its way. I know of two potential projects, one in Newton Stewart and one in Lockerbie, for which capital funding is potentially available for swimming pool projects at schools, through the new opportunities fund and other funding. However, the deficit funding to keep the facility running would not be available.
If the minister were to get on his bike—as someone else once said—he would find a lengthy cycleway through Dumfries and Galloway, which is essentially funded through the lottery, but for which no maintenance funding whatever exists. Instead of being an asset for the local authority, it has become a liability. I hope that the minister will address those points, and the important issue of the balance between capital and revenue.
On the question of capital projects being liabilities rather than assets, which I agree is a key point, one suggestion has been to have an endowment associated with smaller projects, such as the cycleway to which David Mundell referred, as happens when a house is gifted to the National Trust. The funding package will then include an element of endowment, which pays for upkeep, that payment perhaps going to the local authority. Would David Mundell consider that as a possibility, and would the minister comment on it when summing up?
That would certainly be worth considering. We must consider anything that would allow us to ensure that we not only get projects going, but are able to maintain them once they are up and running.
Members may call me cynical, but every time I hear the word "new" it conjures up for me the idea of spin over substance. New Labour, new deal and now the new opportunities fund—Allan Wilson even said that he was new in his post. As Mike Russell made clear, nobody disputes the worthiness of the causes that are benefiting from money provided by the new opportunities fund. I have been pleased to welcome a number of distributions across the south of Scotland. However, the use of lottery funds in that way was never envisaged in the initial lottery proposals and calls into question the boundary between the use of public funds generated by taxation and funds that are supposed to be additional to those.
The lottery that the Conservative Government set up in 1993 has helped countless good causes and aided many charities throughout Scotland. Initially, 28 per cent of the proceeds from ticket sales went to the five good causes of the arts, charities, heritage, the millennium and sport. That was the appropriate format, as the lottery was always intended to provide additional funds to charities. It was never viewed as a substitute for charity funding.
As the minister suggested, when people are asked, they agree that the individual causes that receive money from the new opportunities fund should be funded. However, they do not think that charities should receive less funding. Because of the introduction of the new opportunities fund, money has effectively been taken away from charities.
The new opportunities fund is the sixth good cause and is administered by the national lottery distribution fund. As a result, charities and voluntary organisations have inevitably received less funding. I believe that, generally, charities and voluntary organisations are best placed to deliver locally the services that make a real difference to the public.
The use of lottery money to fund the national health service may have a superficial appeal, but no more than that. Closer analysis shows that the overall effect that such funding can have on the NHS is minimal at best. It is a great irony that under new Labour health care receives lottery funding, whereas patients receive a lottery in health care.
I move amendment S1M-2043.2, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:
"and further notes the arbitrary movement of lottery funding away from community-based projects and from support for Scotland's vital voluntary sector."
We welcome the good work that is funded by the lottery. Many of the schemes that are paid for by the new opportunities fund are excellent and very welcome.
Although we support the minister's motion, we are concerned that he should take account of the points that are made in the two amendments and in the speeches supporting them. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is not the only body that has views on these matters. Recently, on behalf of the Finance Committee, I interviewed eight groups that represent all sectors of the voluntary movement in Scotland. Many of them were strongly of the view that the new opportunities fund is London-based, and that it has no real presence here and does not operate as well as it should, with the result that money is being wasted.
As a way of testing that, my assistant tried to get details of child care ventures that are supported by the lottery. He contacted the address that the lottery gives in Glasgow, but was told that all information about child care schemes is held in Newcastle. The Glasgow address is just an accommodation address. It is essential that the Executive and the Parliament get a grip on the disbursement of lottery funds in Scotland, so that it is done in accordance with our priorities.
Additionality is a separate issue. It is clear that lottery funds are being substituted for what should be mainstream UK Government and Scottish Executive funding. That is not what the lottery was meant to be used for and it should stop.
The motion refers to the fact that the new opportunities fund is "currently consulting widely". I was told by voluntary organisations from throughout that wide sector that ministers should listen to the voluntary sector, which is critical of many of the proposals.
The minister spoke about the large investment in school sport. He will not get me to say, "I am against investing in school sport", but I will say that there is no point in investing in sport in schools unless investment is also made in adult sports clubs. The point of getting young people interested in sport is so that they will continue to participate in sport. They can continue to do so only by participating in sports clubs. The clubs that came to see me said that they were in crisis, because they have been grossly underfunded for years. They are finding it harder to get referees.
Although I accept many of Mr Gorrie's points, will he accept that one of the main problems with children and young people in Scotland is that they do not have an attitude that enables them to take part in sport? Getting them involved in school sport will help to develop that attitude. In turn, that will enable them to take part in sport in their communities. However, children and young people do not participate in sport at present, and school is the best starting point.
One should not cure a bottleneck in order to create another. Funds must be distributed in a way that allows funds to support clubs. Sports clubs are among the main pillars of our communities. They are in a bad way, however, and they say that they are in crisis and that many risk going out of business soon.
The idea that sport feeds through from schools has been mentioned. A person from a curling organisation told me that there had been a pilot scheme in her area to teach curling in schools. She said that there had been no follow-through and that there was no increase in the number of people joining adult curling clubs as a result of that pilot project. We must examine carefully how the money from the new opportunities fund is used and we must support sports clubs to help them work in the community, where they can do much good.
The new opportunities fund undermines informal education and makes life harder for scouts and youth clubs. Environmental groups that spoke to me told me about endowments, which have been mentioned. As well as paying for start-ups, money must be made available to enable such groups to maintain their activities. Environmental groups are particularly perturbed by the fact that they have been dropped from the new opportunities fund lists on which they used to figure and cannot understand why.
There are many concerns about the new opportunities fund's figures; for example, the voluntary sector is unhappy about the fund. We must consider funding as a whole and use money better. We must control the funds in Scotland and develop a partnership between the voluntary sector, the Executive and the Parliament. We might then make much better use of funds to create a better society, which was supposed to be the objective of the new opportunities fund.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate.
I always try to assess the success of ventures on whether they deliver for people on the ground. We should not forget that, in some instances, the money that is to be distributed through the new opportunities fund—like the other funds that are connected with the lottery—has come from the poorest people in our communities, who spend proportionally more on the lottery per head of population than better-off people spend. I have no difficulty with the fact that Bellsbank adventure playground in my constituency was a beneficiary of the out-of-school child care fund. I have no difficulty with the fact that the Girvan after-school care project, which is based in a social inclusion partnership area, also got money to develop that project. I have no difficulty with the fact that the yipworld.com project in Cumnock, which is a new and innovative project that works with some of the most disadvantaged young people in the community, has just been awarded another grant to assist in the creation of after-school and before-school care places and holiday places for young people.
The important thing to remember is that those schemes are run by the voluntary sector in partnership with the local authorities. Other organisations, such as the health boards and health trusts, have also been supportive. In order to benefit our communities, we need to ensure that that partnership approach is developed.
As someone who previously worked in the voluntary sector, I am aware of the SCVO's concern that the money must not simply be used to supplement or replace funding that some people feel should be provided from Government resources. My understanding is that the proposals in no way prevent the voluntary sector from developing its proposals. Indeed, we would welcome the development of proposals in partnership with the Executive and local authorities.
In particular, I welcome the opportunity to expand the provision of sports facilities in schools and communities. It has now been acknowledged that the provision of such facilities can be a preventive measure. They can involve young people—in particular, young boys—in sporting activities while they are in school, and give them the opportunity to continue with those activities when they leave school. Such activities can be a useful way of diverting them from other activities that young people sometimes get up to.
The fund presents many opportunities for organisations such as the Cumnock Juniors Boys Club in my constituency, which could with a small amount of money develop its facilities to provide real opportunities for young people to participate in football.
I acknowledge Donald Gorrie's point that young people sometimes try out sports in school and do not continue with them. Part of what we need to do is to make sport appear to be something that it is cool for young people to participate in—they should not need to be forced into doing sport at school. Sports should be played for enjoyment. Young people should be encouraged to continue to participate in sport throughout their adult lives, so that they adopt a healthy outlook.
Finally, I want to comment on swimming pools—an issue that was raised earlier. If, on a sunny day during the summer, people wish to visit New Cumnock, I encourage them to come and see the refurbishment work that a group of local volunteers has done in order to reopen the New Cumnock open-air swimming pool. It is a sight to behold and it is an absolutely wonderful place to go on a sunny day. The pool is a testimony to what local people can do when they decide that the continuation of a sporting or leisure activity is important to their community. I genuinely hope that people will take that opportunity.
I hope that, when the minister sums up, he will agree that the new opportunities fund does not limit opportunities for the voluntary sector, but rather that it creates them. I defy anybody to deny that the priorities that are identified—funding for sport, reducing the level of coronary heart disease, tackling the drugs problem, improving child care, transforming communities and the awards for all programme—are the kind of opportunities that we want to see being offered to our most disadvantaged communities.
Debates such as this are always difficult because the great measure of consensus means that many of the things that I wanted to say have been said. Before members tell me to sit down again, let me say that it never prevented any of the guys in other parties from standing up and speaking for a wee while. I will indulge myself.
The first thing that bothers me a wee bit is that the minister's motion talks about how admirable it is that we have a commitment to
"social inclusion, equality and diversity and to working in partnership".
I agree that that is admirable, but I wonder why the term "social inclusion" has come back in instead of "social justice". My personal view is that "social justice", which is the term that we use in the Parliament, is a much more inclusive term than "social inclusion" because it display fairness, which is what we should all be striving to achieve.
That said, I will examine some of the things that have been said and some other matters that I want to mention. I share the valid concerns of the SCVO about the lack of Scottish input to the disbursement of the new opportunities fund, although—like Mike Russell—I welcome the cash injections that have been given. However, there is a lack of Scottish control.
Another concern of mine has already been mentioned by members—the use of lottery money to finance the core operations of Government when that money should be truly additional. It is wonderful that health spending has gone up by £32 million, that £10 million is being spent on drug rehabilitation and that £87 million is being spent on physical education and sport in schools—which I will come back to. However, it concerns me greatly that, if we keep going as we are, we are heading towards a situation in which public expenditure could, quite literally, become a lottery.
I am also concerned about comments that were made earlier this week by the chairperson of the National Lottery Commission to the effect that there is likely to be a shortfall from what Camelot expected when it made its bid. I hope that that does not point to a future shortfall in funding. Will we see a lottery squeeze that is far worse than the Barnett squeeze?
I mentioned social justice. I am concerned that, although we all welcome the wonderful social justice initiatives that come through lottery funding, Angus MacKay's budget speech this morning showed that the social justice budget for the Parliament over the next two years will lose £35 million. I wonder whether Allan Wilson will address that issue.
I said that I would come back to sport. Like everybody else, I welcome the injection of money to improve sports in schools. I also agree with everything that Karen Gillon said about trying to create an attitude among young people so that they want to participate in sport. However—in acknowledging all that Cathy Jamieson said—it is problematic that the majority of lottery money comes from those who can least afford it. I remember that there was a bit of a stushie last year when the private Mary Erskine School in Edinburgh was given a lot of lottery money for its sports facilities. I will be interested to know how much of the sports money that will be distributed this time will go to private schools.
Does Linda Fabiani welcome the fact that the new opportunities fund aims to use the Arbuthnott indices to target areas that would get the most benefit from the money? Does she regard that as an appropriate mechanism?
Yes, it is appropriate. I am expressing my personal opinion that we should do more than use the Arbuthnott formula. We should target areas that have no facilities and we should encourage sport in those areas.
The other thing that I want to say about sport is much more personal. Although I agree that we should promote sport in every way, I want to make a plea on behalf of kids at school who hate sports, because that was me. Let us not be prescriptive and force absolutely every child to enjoy sport. For me, it was absolutely awful—I hated every minute. There were no sports that I wanted to play apart from darts and snooker, and I do not suppose that those are the kinds of sport that will be promoted.
Will the member give way?
No—the member is winding up and must continue.
That is my plea for the kids who do not want to play sports—do not start making them do so.
I welcome many things that have happened. In Central Scotland, which I represent, East Kilbride, Hamilton, Motherwell and Falkirk are all seeing the benefits of lottery funding. However, let us be cautious: we must not start to regard lottery funding as a replacement for core funding.
I am delighted to contribute to the debate. The new opportunities fund was launched on 29 January 1999. It required a change in legislation to allow the use of lottery funding for health and education. As colleagues have said, the Conservatives always welcome additional funding for the NHS and education. However, I would like to express the concerns of a Labour MP, who contributed to the original debate on the National Lottery etc Bill in the House of Commons in 1993. That member said:
"The reservation that I and many of my hon. Friends have is that the revenue will not supplement Government expenditure, but will supplant it. It will be used as a source of revenue to pay for things that could and should come from general taxation. That is the real fear."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 28 April 1993; Vol 223, c 1122.]
I listened to my colleague David Mundell's speech about cycle paths that are financed for the short term, but which lack revenue for care and maintenance in the long term. Lottery funding can be used for the prevention, detection, diagnosis and treatment of cancer, coronary heart disease and strokes, and to improve the provision of associated support and information services. It can be used to improve the provision of palliative care, of the support and information services that are associated with such care, and of counselling services. It is one thing to build a cycle path and not maintain it, but to raise expectations and fund services, such as the health services that I listed, without offering secure long-term funding is cruel and misleading.
As Linda Fabiani mentioned, spending on lottery tickets is volatile, which is evident in this week's announcement of lower funds for good causes. Many people in Scotland are concerned that Government spending on core services in the national health service is being replaced by lottery spending. For example, public health spending is a major priority in Scotland, yet the core network of healthy living centres is funded by the lottery. Cancer is one of the three top clinical priorities, yet programmes for cancer prevention, treatment and palliative care are funded by the lottery.
As an ex-lecturer, I am aware that information and communication technology training for teachers, school librarians and public library staff is funded by the lottery.
Like other members, I welcomed Peter Peacock's initiatives on out-of-school-hours activities, but I did not hear him say that they would be funded by the lottery. I would like there to be more honesty, and I would like an assurance that the services will exist in the longer term.
The problem of service sustainability was raised by Tessa Baring, a member of the National Lottery Charities Board, who—according to Derek Wyatt MP—argued in Lottery Monitor
"that many people in the voluntary sector feel dismayed by the creation of the new opportunities fund, which they consider to be breaching the principles of arm's length and additionality … The Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a consultation paper in November 1998 outlining three initiatives. One initiative concerned cancer care."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Westminster Hall, 11 April 2000; Vol 348, c 2WH.]
The then Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting responded:
"As with all lottery funding, the new opportunities fund supports only initiatives additional to those funded from taxation."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Westminster Hall, 11 April 2000; Vol 348, c 8WH.]
My question is, how additional is the funding? Is it pound for pound, or are we seeing creeping and increasing lottery funding, which will do what the Labour member whom I quoted suggested in 1993, and supplant rather than supplement Government funding? When it announces new money and new initiatives, will the Executive be honest and state what is to be funded in the long term from general taxation and what is funded by the lottery?
Mary Scanlon talked about additionality, but would the Tories levy the taxes that they would need to fund it?
This has been a good debate, but whatever the result of the vote on the motion at decision time, there are issues that must be discussed further, for example additionality and revenue funding.
We should take the opportunity to thank the new opportunities fund and contest the idea that no Scottish operation exists. When I was first elected, I examined the information from the various lottery funds and thought that the Borders had not received its fair share. Not long after that, I was contacted by Pauline Cameron, head of the Scottish office of the new opportunities fund, which wanted to go to the Borders and investigate how it could make people more aware of the opportunities that exist. An activities week was held, and I was asked—through another channel—to open a nursery, which was the first project that was funded by the new opportunities fund.
That happened less than a year and a half ago. Since then, the Borders has had tremendous input. Only this week, it was announced that £90,000 would be provided towards the establishment of seven out-of-school care projects. They will change the prospects of children and give them valuable educational experience. The projects will also make opportunities available to parents, who will be able to study and take work that they could not before. In isolated communities, that is important.
Of course, some changes could be made. Some criteria are flawed. As only start-up money is provided, problems can occur, because it is difficult for a small group to be viable within one year, as it should be. I know that deprivation indices allow some areas to have three-year funding, but sometimes the areas do not seem to be targeted terribly well.
The SCVO's criticisms include criticism of short-term funding. Ian Jenkins is right to identify the difficulty of that. How does he respond to the SCVO's other criticisms about transparency, having a Scottish committee work on the fund and the erosion of the principle of additionality, which are key issues?
Ian Jenkins is in his last minute.
Am I in my last minute already? In that case, I will not respond to those criticisms now. I have said that the debate must continue.
Mary Scanlon talked about health issues. Funding for palliative care and for a cancer unit allied to Borders general hospital has been promised. That will be valuable and might not have been created from normal funding, because technically treatment was available elsewhere. If we can bring treatment closer to the people in that way, I would think of that as additionality. I do not want to niggle about that.
When we consider the range and reach of the scheme and the work that has been led by the Scottish office of the fund, it seems churlish to criticise. Some adjustments must be made, but we should go home for our holidays today feeling good about things. We should warmly welcome the new opportunities that people are being given.
Like the Labour MP whom Mary Scanlon quoted, I was one of many who opposed the national lottery when it was introduced in 1993. A Calvinist streak in me remains slightly uncomfortable with the idea of Governments promoting gambling to provide services. Some of the most high-profile recipients of lottery funding have not helped the lottery's image. I acknowledge the concerns of several members that the principle of additionality must be adhered to. The published criteria for the new opportunities fund make that clear—I checked that in their most recent publication.
Mike Russell referred to a briefing that the SCVO e-mailed to all MSPs this week before the debate. I felt that the briefing had a strangely nationalistic tone.
What is strange about nationalism?
I take some exception to Mr Russell's quotation about the effective use of significant funds. To illustrate that, I will refer to several projects in Dumfries and Galloway that received funding this year.
The first is a Macmillan Cancer Relief project that received £1.5 million. That went not to the national health service in Scotland, but to a charity, to provide 50 per cent of the construction costs of a purpose-built cancer, oncology and palliative care facility at Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary.
At the present time, some of my seriously ill constituents are forced to travel to Edinburgh, Glasgow or Carlisle for cancer treatment. Far from being ineffective, when taken together with funding for the training of staff in the voluntary and statutory sectors, those are important and welcome funding developments for the Dumfries and Galloway region.
Over £1 million has been allocated to healthy living centres in Dumfries and Galloway. The centres support community health development workers in four areas including, as it so happens, the area in which I live.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am sorry, I am pressed for time.
Some of the areas that are benefiting from the investment are rural and others are urban. All have a higher-than-average level of deprivation. Seventeen partner organisations, including voluntary sector organisations such as the Maxwelton umbrella group, worked hard for two years to secure funding. Over £500,000 has been allocated to summer-school and after-school projects across the region. Those projects are additional to work that is being done by the council, and they allow it to extend the range of opportunities that are on offer to young people.
At the turn of last year, a further £100,000 went to Dumfries and Galloway College to enable it to develop a website as part of its on-going lifelong learning partnership—a partnership that is becoming an extremely important facility with an emphasis on skill development in rural areas. That is also an effective use of funding.
The third round of NOF initiatives, currently under consultation, will be worth an additional £1.5 billion. My attention was drawn to the section on youth work and the funding for building and refurbishing outdoor adventure facilities. I was approached recently by about 30 young men from my constituency, aged between 13 and 25, who want to develop a BMX and skateboarding facility. We had a productive meeting with the council. I see that as a great opportunity to empower those young people and to allow them to take ownership of and to develop a partnership project that would otherwise not be open to them. That is potentially an effective use of lottery funding.
Back in 1993, when the lottery was introduced, donations to charity fell. Many people saw the lottery as an alternative way of giving funds to charity. The debate gives us an opportunity to encourage people to try to contribute directly to charities that they wish to support. That would be a better way for people to support charities.
I want to make it clear that no one is against money being distributed to good causes. For a long time, I have championed and campaigned for the good cause of using schools for sports activities outwith school hours.
What concerns me and other members who have spoken in the debate is that the lottery funding road that we are going down is one of pushing through Government policies without adequate consultation. I hope that the minister will look at that. Members have discussed where lottery money is going—into sport in schools, cancer care and child care. As members have said, those are all good causes. That is true, but should not those projects be funded by national money rather than propped up by lottery funding?
I will dare to mention the £5 billion of lost lottery funding. In essence, that loss means that projects may fall and that in other cases, as Mary Scanlon mentioned, it will be impossible to do long-term planning. We must get away from the assumption that we can give money to good causes on a hit-and-miss basis. What will happen to lottery funding next year? Will it fall yet again? We cannot prop up Government policies through lottery funding.
I want to mention the criteria that are used to decide on lottery funding for projects. The groups that seek funding must meet criteria set by the funder. That puts the cart before the horse and it is the wrong way for money to be made available. Local examples of that problem include Maryhill, Whiteinch, Partick and—dare I say it—even Govanhill, which has recently been in the news. All those communities, and many others, want to improve their facilities and yet community centres, swimming pools and schools are being closed down. If local people and their young children are to be encouraged to use their schools, sports facilities and community centres, they should be encouraged to apply for lottery funding, but they cannot get that funding because the projects for which they want it do not match the criteria. That issue has been raised by various members. I hope that the minister will consider it.
I welcome any funding at all, but we should not use lottery money to prop up Government policies. My fear is that we are pushing through those policies with that money. We should have an explanation about that—it should be changed. Mary Scanlon mentioned honesty; I would use the word "dishonest".
Short-term funding is an area where there may be an opportunity to issue national policy guidelines and for the Executive to make recommendations to all funding bodies, not just the national lottery.
I have met people running playbuses, for which there is a clear and continuing demand. They provide a welcome service, not least in Edinburgh and Perthshire.
The Polbeth market garden project, which provides encouragement for young people with learning difficulties to find ways into work and many other community initiatives, receives—for example—funding for two or three years. During that period it has a staff of two or three, but from the beginning of the project, one member of that staff spends most of his or her time chasing the next round of funding. That is a complete waste of a project's funding. The Executive and the funding bodies should pay more attention to the effects of that, especially if the funding to the charity concerned is awarded on a rolling basis.
Once a project has received its first round of two-year funding, if clear and continued demand and need and quality of delivery have been proven over those two years, the next round could be for four years. I have raised the point before, and I hope that the minister addresses the issue in his closing speech.
This has been an interesting debate. Unfortunately, the consensus throughout the chamber on the issue is not reflected in the motion and the various amendments. There is a greater degree of consensus than it would appear.
It is right, as some members have said, to celebrate the achievements of the national lottery and, in particular, the new opportunities fund, which has funded a range of good, innovative, productive projects that would not otherwise have happened. People have expressed concern about additionality. I share that concern, but the context of that issue is important. If there is adequate local government funding—there has been an increase in that funding in real terms this year—there is less need for councils to rob Peter to pay Paul and the difficulties with voluntary sector support and so on are decreased. The long-term stability of mainstream funding in central and local government is the important back-cloth to the issue of additionality.
What is additionality and which existing projects are we talking about replacing? There would be unanimity throughout the chamber that for a council to close a project and then reopen it with lottery funding is not an acceptable way of going about things. On the other hand, councils may have powers that are not being used, but which can be advanced or enhanced by new opportunities funding that is more flexible on the fringe. Any advantage that is taken of such opportunities should not necessarily be criticised.
There is a need for a Scottish focus on how priorities are set. The issue should not be seen as an opportunity for an argument between the Parliament, the Executive and Westminster. The issue here is primarily the way in which the voluntary sector's independence of decision making can be enhanced and the sector given some degree of control.
After all, priorities in different parts of the voluntary sector may be slightly different from the priorities of the Parliament, of local authorities or of the Government. I would like to err on the side of giving greater independence and power to the voluntary sector. In that context, the opportunity to have some sort of Scottish committee might be readily enhanced by considering the different sectors of support that the new opportunities fund deals with. I was slightly surprised that Robin Harper did not touch on the environmental aspects of that support and on the transformation fund for environmental projects. Perhaps there is a need for an enhancement of environmental interest in the way that lottery funds are dealt with.
Mike Russell and Donald Gorrie made useful points about the need for endowment and longer-term funding. I support that. Times without number, good projects go forward—under new opportunities funding or otherwise—but when they come to the end of that funding they are not realistically going to be sustained in the long term by private sector income. The idea of enhancing such funding through endowment funding of some sort is a useful and valid concept for projects. The curse of the voluntary sector is the problem of short-term funding and the lack of ability to continue funding in the long term.
None of that should go against the value, interest and importance of the new opportunities fund and the things that it has been able to do. We can say that Scotland is considerably better off today because of the fund's existence than it would otherwise have been. We are talking about ways in which we can tweak the arrangements to make the fund work more effectively, more sensitively, more locally and more in the context of the priorities that the voluntary sector sets.
It is clear that most members understood what I was driving at when I took a simplistic approach in my amendment to the motion. The original lottery fund was supposed to deliver 25 per cent of its moneys to sports, arts, heritage and charities. That has been cut back to just over 16 per cent.
When the Conservatives left power, funding for the Scottish Arts Council was £32 million. In 2000, it was £21 million—a cutback of 35 per cent. Similarly, sportscotland had a 20 per cent cutback, which highlights my question about where the money went. Did it simply move across, as Mary Scanlon said, to fund announcements from ministers? Are those announcements being paid for from the lottery? We need honesty and transparency and that sort of activity is very depressing to those people who struggle manfully—and womanfully, if that is the right word—to cope in the voluntary sector.
Some very good points have been made in the debate. We all welcome any resource, but we are quite concerned about how things work out in Scotland. After David Mundell talked about modifying the rules on capital and revenue spending, Mike Russell came up with the endowment idea, which has been supported by many.
I have a couple of examples of projects in the north-east of Scotland—a heritage project and a community project with a health benefit. The Dundee Heritage Trust runs the Verdant works and Discovery point, and does major pieces of heritage work. Millions of pounds have gone into the trust from the Conservative Government and from the current Government, but the trust is short of £75,000 of revenue to get through the present lull in tourism and cannot get it. I know that Allan Wilson has kindly got himself involved in that case, but it is an example of the short-sightedness of systems that put in capital, but no revenue support or deficit funding until such groups get themselves under way.
The other example is a project that has been going on for a long time in central Buchan: the Mintlaw community pool project. The local people raised a lot of money and got their lottery applications, but the council claims that, since the new spending round, it cannot afford to put in any deficit funding. That project is supported by doctors and local people. It would be a good resource and would improve people's health, but they cannot have it. They have a load of cash, but they do not have anything to finish off the project and run it in the short term.
Those are two examples of how, if we are to have a discussion, we should discuss the practicalities of how to deal with such matters.
Apart from the minister, I think that most members agree about additionality. Additionality should be clear. Scotland's voluntary sector has produced things that are impossible to quantify. We know what the voluntary sector has done for the quality of life. It needs encouragement and basic resources. The changes under the Labour Government have removed some of the supports that the voluntary sector had. There is a very bureaucratic system for making applications. That costs money and manpower and many charitable organisations simply cannot cope with it. They will therefore never be in the running to put in a bid for anything. That point has been well made by many members.
We also have to consider the use of the Arbuthnott formula. In Aberdeen and other cities, there are huge areas of terrible deprivation and the Arbuthnott formula actually moves money away. That is not the purpose of the good works that we are discussing.
A Labour Government that is one of the highest-taxing Administrations that this country has known should do better than raid what is voluntarily given in the lottery to fund Government projects.
The debate has been useful and informative. MSPs from all parties have highlighted the increasing importance of lottery funding to communities throughout Scotland and the Government's increasing reliance on lottery funding to deliver its policy objectives. The SNP will support the Conservative amendment.
The stated aims of the new opportunities fund are to address the needs of the most disadvantaged and to encourage community participation. It was good to hear members highlighting the awards in their areas, but I am sure that Cathy Jamieson will forgive me if I do not take up her invitation to jump into the open-air swimming pool, however warm it might be this summer.
The projects that the new opportunities fund is tackling and prioritising are in health and education and include out-of-school learning and child care. The projects in the new round of funding include drug support, palliative care, sport and schools. All those projects are welcome and all are devolved matters.
The new opportunities fund projects are meant to complement the national and local strategies. As many members have said, the new opportunities fund has no Scottish committee to provide a focus or to decide on Scottish allocations. The SNP agrees with the SCVO, which said:
"SCVO would like to record its continued view that all decisions about the Scottish proportion of the New Opportunities Fund should be the subject of scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament after wide consultation in Scotland".
Elaine Murray said that the SCVO briefing had a fairly nationalistic tone. That notion would be rather bizarre to the authors of the briefing paper and I refer her to the report itself.
Elaine Murray also mentioned additionality as a concern. Donald Gorrie said that the current system is not working. I will return to that later. Ian Jenkins said that we should look at some of the problems.
Despite all the welcome news and the individual projects throughout the country that members have highlighted, the current system is failing in some areas and the basic aims of the new opportunities fund are not being met.
I will expand on the point that I made to the minister. Some of the most deprived areas in Fife—the ex-mining communities—have missed out completely. Not a penny has gone to Kirkcaldy, Levenmouth, Cowdenbeath, Methil or north-east Fife. There is not insufficient funding; money is simply not being accessed. I welcome the minister's comment that that issue has been considered and I would like him to expand on that when he sums up.
The Parliament has no role to scrutinise or oversee the new opportunities fund. We cannot find out why in some areas new opportunities fund money is being accessed and organisations are receiving it while other areas are simply losing out.
Robert Brown delivered a well-argued speech, which deserves further consideration. He made several valuable points. As I said, there is a problem with the new opportunities fund in some areas. Perhaps that is owing to lack of publicity or lack of support and assistance from the local authority. We must examine the new opportunities fund to find out where the problems are. That can be achieved only if this Parliament examines the matter, but it has no remit to do so. That is a failing.
The Parliament should rise to the challenges of the new opportunities fund. This is a useful first debate, but we must have more debates on the matter. There must be greater scrutiny in the Parliament about where the funding is going. More consideration must be given to the priority areas, which should be decided here in Scotland. We should not shy away from our responsibilities. It is our obligation to say that we know that there is a problem and that we want to provide a solution. The problem can best be addressed by this Parliament.
I reassure members in all parties that I do not believe that everything is perfect in the lottery garden. There are parallels with, for example, the European structural funds, as there are peaks and troughs that should be sorted out.
However, several misplaced criticisms have been made. Tricia Marwick and Mike Russell referred to transparency in the powers of the Parliament. Scottish Executive involvement in setting policy directions is not on a grace-and-favour basis; it is part of our constitutional settlement. The concordat between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Scottish Executive sets out that working relationship and provides the flexibility that Tricia Marwick and Mike Russell seek.
The powers to specify initiatives that are to be funded by the new opportunities fund have been split to allow the Scottish Executive to exercise them on devolved matters. The concordat ensures that the Scottish Executive identifies priority areas and funding. Decisions on the detail of individual programmes and applications are a matter for the new opportunities fund. That is an important distinction, because not all lotteries succeed. If a state lottery finds itself open to the accusation that it replaces the money raised in direct taxation, it is liable to fail.
Several of the points that have been made disregard the current arrangements under which the Scottish ministers can and do influence—I have done so myself—the policy and funding directions given to the NOF. There is a Scottish member of the NOF board and the NOF has a Scotland office in Glasgow. There are complete devolved and delegated powers for Scotland on a number of the programmes—on healthy living centres, for example. Powers are also delegated on the land fund. The powers on the fresh futures fund are devolved to Scotland Forward and Scottish Natural Heritage.
Cathy Jamieson made a good point. There would be no sport in schools or the community without the work of volunteers. The voluntary sports sector represents a substantial proportion of Scotland's third sector. That represents the opportunity that Cathy Jamieson mentioned. It is an opportunity for the voluntary sector, which is welcomed by volunteers in communities, even if not by the SCVO.
I repeat that I am delighted that PE and sport in schools have been identified as a high priority in the next round of NOF initiatives. Sport makes a substantial contribution to many areas of Scottish life. We want to make Scotland a genuinely sporting nation.
Sport and physical activity play a key part in our attack on health problems. Participation in sport can be an attractive alternative to anti-social activities and criminal behaviour. It contributes to a modern inclusive society. Links between sport and children's academic attainment and overall achievement are increasingly being recognised. Sport helps to develop personal and social skills, to raise self-esteem and to promote self-discipline, respect, teamwork and a sense of fair play. All those skills are required in the new economy.
I say to Donald Gorrie that NOF investment complements existing programmes. It will not replace Exchequer funding or funding through sportscotland's lottery funding, including the active primary schools programme, the TOP programmes, the sports facilities programme and the school sports co-ordinator scheme. Those links will continue and will be expanded.
Although Scotland's health record is getting better, we still have some way to go in improving the population's health. However, the coronary heart disease task force report proposes specific strategies to deal with heart disease and strokes and the Executive's new cancer strategy will be published early next month. Those strategies include targets to reduce inequalities in health, which is a priority embedded in the Executive's fight for social justice.
Mary Scanlon, Linda Fabiani and other members raised the issue of additionality. The UK Government, the Scottish Executive and the NOF are committed to the principle of additionality. Above all else, we are making a significant investment through our health spending, which is set to increase by more than £400 million each year, from £5.9 billion this year to more than £6.7 billion in 2003-04.
Will the minister give way?
No. I have only a limited amount of time and I would like to continue. I am sure that the member will agree that we have had a fair debate.
An additional sum of £287 million was announced only this morning, and new opportunities funding is additional to such record resources.
The same applies to child care. Our child care strategy is vital to the provision of good-quality pre-school education and child care for the benefit of children and working parents. We should all welcome the new new opportunities initiative that will access all programmes and ensure continued success with a particular focus on supporting projects in areas of disadvantage.
David Davidson, Robin Harper and other members raised the issue of sustainability, which is reflected in the division between capital and revenue spending in the new initiative.
Will the minister give way?
Not at the minute.
I agree with Robert Brown that the debate did not reflect the amendments, which are inaccurate and misleading and should be opposed. David Mundell and other Conservative members have said throughout that, when the Conservatives set up the system, lottery funding was not meant to be distributed in the way that it now is. I agree—we have changed it and there will be no return to the Conservative methodology of lottery funding that benefited those with the most at the expense of those with the least.
The new opportunities fund programmes are popular with the people and we will prioritise spending within them on health, education, sport and the environment and on combating drug abuse. In doing so, we will match the people's priorities.
As pleased as I was to see Mike Russell survive Mr Swinney's night of the long spoons, I do not believe that he and the SNP will survive the people's judgment. The people's priorities of health, education, sport, the environment and combating drug abuse do not equate with the SNP's fixation on constitutional navel-gazing.
Three weeks ago, the people spoke, and the SNP would do well to listen. If it maintains its current rate of electoral progress under Mr Swinney's leadership, it will pass the Tories on its way down the popularity stakes. I ask Parliament to support the motion and to reject the amendments.