In my introduction to the launch, I said that our organisations represent people, not positions. I think some people find it difficult to get their minds round what this means and keep expecting us to deliver civil society’s position on the questions they think are important. Even once we had made it clear that we were not arguing for a particular outcome in the referendum, the journalists kept pushing us on whether the group would have a position once our organisations responded to the government consultation papers, what we thought the outcome of our debate was going to be, how we were going to assess our conclusions and how we were going to feed that resulting position into the referendum process. They wanted it to be clear and simple. 

The political debates we’re used to start with each side taking a particular position and then slugging it out until one side wins. Often civil society organisations do the same. They have a way of determining what their position should be, whether through a committee elected from their members, like the SCVO Policy Committee, or by votes at an AGM, or a General Assembly. Once a position has been decided, you then set about defending it – not changing it in the light of discussion but pushing that line as hard as you can until it either wins the day or is defeated. The language of battle is telling – this is seldom a creative process.

Sometimes this approach is appropriate. There are some principles you do want to defend to the bitter end. Many of the politicians in the limelight in recent weeks see their views about Scotland’s constitutional future in this way.

But I’m sure there are many people who are not so certain, or who have come to a view and want to check it out against the experience of those who are delivering our public services, or monitoring our carbon footprint, or housing our homeless, or lifting our spirits through the arts. Do they think changing our constitutional status will help them in their work or not?

The Future of Scotland is for them. I hope they’ll be able to share their experience and their worries and their ideas with others in an atmosphere that is informative, creative and constructive. In the end of the day, we’ll all have to make a clear decision on our future, but I hope this will help us to have confidence in the decision we make.

Just fill in your details below and the link will be emailed to you straight away.

cforms contact form by delicious:days

The most recent funding updates are only available to SCVO members. The password for this edition of the funding update is in your latest member bulletin. If you have lost your password please email membership@scvo.org.uk and we will email it to you.

Alison Elliot, Convener, SCVO

Dear member,

Future of Scotland Coalition

Having spent a large part of the past six months talking to Chief Executives across the sector, SCVO’s Board, Policy Committee and our Intermediaries network, we identified a strong appetite for a wider debate on Scotland’s constitutional future free from party politics.

SCVO has come together with eight other organisations across civic Scotland – the STUC, Church of Scotland, ACTS, Institute of Directors, Reform Scotland, Centre for Scottish Public Policy, Faith in Community Scotland, the Scottish Youth Parliament and the NUS – to form a coalition which will open up the debate about the Future of Scotland.

We believe our involvement in this coalition will help SCVO achieve its aim of amplifying the voice of third sector organisations by helping to create a space where you can express your views on what the Future of Scotland should look like. We want to ensure that the third sector and the issues important to our members are considered in an inclusive and thoughtful debate on the referendum.

The purpose of this initiative is to connect the debate about Scotland’s future to what matters to people. Its agenda will be set by the people participating in it and its starting point will be the kind of Scotland people would like to see. Then we will consider what powers Scotland would need to achieve that.

Our members and coalition partners’ members will have different views on our constitutional future. We seek to bring together the diverse views of the third sector and wider civil society to give everyone a voice in this historic debate.

Contrary to some reports, it is not a campaign for a particular outcome in the referendum or to get a second question on the ballot paper.

The next two years will provide an opportunity for us all to shape the future of Scotland and I hope you will join the coalition in opening the debate and discussing the issues that matter to you.

All members are invited to sign-up to the Future of Scotland debate.

We will also be holding a conference on Thursday 1 March at the SECC in Glasgow – you can sign-up to attend on the website.

With best regards,

Alison Elliot

Convener, SCVO

As Brian Taylor of the BBC put it “we have the continuing controversy over whether there should be a second question on devo max”.

Is it a controversy or just an attempt by an unholy alliance of politicians across all the political parties to retain power and take control not just of the debate but more importantly our future?

And it’s not just the politicians – there is also a cohort of self-opinionated political bloggers and activists who think their views matter more than most and who really don’t want to give the people a voice. Why is this? Because they suspect they won’t get the answer they really want.

Having spent a large part of the past six months talking to leading Chief Executives from the sector, SCVO’s own Board, Policy Committee and our Intermediaries network – all of whom have their own substantial membership base we’ve found that there is popular support for a wider debate distinct from party politics.

Our members of course have different views on our constitutional future but there is a healthy appetite for a full and open debate about the future of Scotland – not a narrow sterile one, defined by the need of different political parties to win the vote.

Let’s not under-estimate that dynamic – the referendum vote could decide the future of a number of our major political parties so, call me cynical, but will the need to win be key to their approach rather than what’s the best future for Scotland?

If the governing SNP lose, how will that affect their re-election chances in the forthcoming Scottish Parliament? Would the negative impact of losing the referendum send them back to minority government?

If Labour loses again, after two Scottish Parliamentary defeats, how will that affect its chances in the next year’s election? Would the party survive in its present form after these blows?

Can the credibility of Scottish Liberal Democrats, longstanding supporters of federalism, recover in Scotland from the effects of coalition with the Tories?

Will the Tories suffer at the hands of the voters because they aren’t seen as a separate and genuinely Scottish led party, as Murdo Fraser wants? Not to mention what the impact of the coalition’s UK policies might be. 

Those are just the obvious questions – the political machinations will be complex, fascinating and driven by party needs and ambitions; not by the people of Scotland.

As I said maybe I’m being too cynical – most politicians I know are good people and genuinely want to make a difference to people’s lives. But as well as being the most important decision for Scotland in 300 years, the referendum will also be the most important factor in the future survival of some of our political parties.

To try and take this debate out of the hands of the political parties SCVO is part of a new civic Scotland campaign which was launched today.

This is not about making the case for independence, devo max, status quo or anything in between.

The organisations who have signed-up so far – and we expect more to do so –  do not have a fixed view about the outcome of the referendum but simply want to broaden this debate across civil society, business and all parts of Scottish life.

The goal is to connect people and different perspectives, and to create a space to discuss them and what they want for Scotland.

The people can then decide what constitutional settlement they want to make that happen.

Asking the right questions opens up a debate that will create a vision for a better Scotland.

Alison Elliot, Convener, SCVO

Welcome to the launch of this debate about the future of Scotland.

For the avoidance of doubt, we are not launching a campaign for a particular outcome in the referendum.

We are not launching a campaign to get a second question on the ballot paper.

What we are launching is a significant contribution to Scotland’s future, which is the point of the forthcoming referendum.

“We” are a coalition of organisations in civil society with considerable reach throughout society.

I chair the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, representing charities, voluntary organisations and other third sector bodies. Dave is here on behalf of the STUC. Stephen Smyth and Ian Galloway bring to the table the churches, through ACTS and the Church of Scotland respectively. The business community is here in the person of David Watt, of the Institute of Directors. We look to Scotland’s bright future through the eyes of the National Union of Students, represented by Robin Parker, and Steven Kidd of the Scottish Youth Parliament.

What are represented here are people, not positions. None of these bodies has taken a view on their preferred outcome in the referendum. All are keen to give their members the opportunity to make their contribution to the debate about Scotland’s future, through their experience, expertise and insight.

We also have the support of two think tanks, Reform Scotland and the Centre for Scottish Public Policy. They deal in ideas, conferences, discussion papers, and we look forward to their contribution giving our debate the edge of considered academic and policy input.

These are the members of the coalition at present. Others will join us. We know of organisations that are not here today because their participation has to be considered by their trustee boards.

The purpose of this initiative is to enable the debate about Scotland’s future to make a connection, so far lacking, with the things that matter to people in this country.

Its agenda will be set by the people participating in it.

Its starting point will be the kind of Scotland people would like to see in their daily life.

The voices we will hear in it are the voices of those who are building the Scotland of today and the Scotland of tomorrow

• People setting up businesses
• People working in poor communities
• People campaigning for environmental justice
• People who enhance our quality of life through public services
• People who add colour and texture to our lives through the arts and sport
• People who have a passion for aspects of Scottish life that most of s never think about
• People who bring fresh minds to our circumstances, through their study and their ambitions

How we’re going to do this is by creating a space in which ideas and discussion and doubts are welcome.

Later this week, we will set up a website, where people can find out what’s going on – what events are happening, conferences planned, papers published, with links to all the participating bodies. We will tweet and encourage the use of social media.

We will kick it all off with a conference in Glasgow on 1^st March, to open out the debate to a wider range of actors, to encourage participation and engagement from the whole audience, and to share plans for taking things further. We hope that this will build momentum for the whole debate.

But we desperately need to move on now from this debate about a debate. A conversation about the kind of Scotland we want to see will be more inspiring and infinitely more meaningful.

Today saw the launch of a new civic society coalition which aims to open up a space for people to talk about the kind of Scotland they want to see. This space, free from party politics, is essential to the democratic process.

There’s far too much analysis at the moment on the political positioning taking place between the nationalist and the unionist parties and between Scottish Government and UK Coalition Government. While this is all very entertaining, it sheds no light on the issues that will have an impact on our lives. The parties have locked themselves into a set of entrenched positions and they can’t get out.

But Scotland’s future is not the prerogative of politicians and policy-makers alone. It’s too important for that. People in all of Scotland’s communities must be given the opportunity to voice their aspirations. It must be accessible to our older people and should be opened up to our younger people. By de facto this means sparking discussions for not just over 18s or over 16s or those that are politically aware, but in schools and through social media networks, in clubs, in care homes, community halls and in congregations. It’s not enough to think about who will be allowed to vote. We need to make the discussions about Scotland’s future accessible to young and old and all sections of society.

We need to start our conversation with the kind of Scotland we want to see. Once we know what our aspirations for Scotland look like, we can then work out what constitutional settlement will best get us there. We don’t need to all have the same vision, but by having a conversation we will all have a better understanding of what we want to see individually and collectively. That way, we will be better prepared to make our choice on the constitutional settlement that will work best for Scotland. This is not the approach we have seen so far with the Calman Commission, Scotland Bill and now the referendum debate. Let’s free our thinking from the political fixes and posturing that have dogged these approaches.

Finally, it is right that we also think about the kind of relationship we want to see between Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales. What’s our vision for how people, institutions, economy and politics should connect across these nations?

Devolution has been a massive move forward for Scotland. The devolution settlement was intended to specify a set of areas where Scotland could determine its own policy. However, this has not always worked in practice. There are some areas where devolved policy simply does not work unless UK policies go in the same direction. Energy policy and planning policy, welfare benefits and welfare services, skills policy and employability initiatives are all areas that simply don’t work well together under the current settlement. The previous initiatives that were left to politicians, including the Scotland Bill, simply have not resolved any of this. Allowing these conflicts to continue simply undermines outcomes for people and their communities.

So in short, this is an opportunity to shape Scotland’s future for the better. This is not about making the case for independence, devolution, status quo or anything in between. It’s about freeing our minds to think about the Scotland we can aspire to, so we can better choose our constitutional means to get there. We need to move to a wider debate on Scotland’s future. It’s time to get into it.

Time to let people decide the type of Scotland they want to see

NEW COALITION OPENS UP SPACE TO CONSIDER ALL OPTIONS FOR SCOTLAND’S FUTURE

A new coalition is being launched today (Monday 30 January) to build a Scotland-wide debate about the constitutional future of the country.

Alison Elliot, Convener, SCVO, said:

“We need to shift the debate on the future of Scotland from powers, legality and timing to consider what we want Scotland to look like in the future, how we could do things differently and how to engage more people in this historic discussion.

“So far we have only heard from those who have a fixed idea of the result they want in the referendum and who seek to narrow the debate. This coalition will build a wide reaching, transparent discussion about the future of our country that considers people’s aspirations and the challenges they face.”

Alison added:

“This is not about making the case for independence, devolution, status quo or anything in between. We do not have a fixed view about the outcome of the referendum. We want to open up everyone’s minds to consider all options.

“Together our organisations already reach millions of people but we want to broaden this debate across civil society, business and all parts of Scottish life.

“Our members and supporters will have different views on our constitutional future. Our goal is to connect these different perspectives, to create the space to discuss them and what we want for Scotland, and then decide what constitutional settlement we need to make that happen.

“Our initial ambitions are to organise a major conference, launch a website and use social media to build momentum for the debate and to grow our coalition.

“Scotland’s constitutional future affects us all. The people of Scotland must have an opportunity to contribute to an open and mature debate.”

ENDS

• Press pack for launch of campaign to open up the debate on the independence referendum.
• Transcript of Alison Elliot’s opening remarks.

Notes to editors:
1. The press launch of the new coalition will take place in the Macdonald Holyrood Hotel, Edinburgh on Monday 30 January at 10am, with breakfast served from 9.30am.
2. Coalition representatives will be available to answer questions and supply comment on its goals and plans, including a major conference and website launch
3. The coalition is currently made up of nine members – Action for Churches Together in Scotland, the Centre for Scottish Public Policy, the Church of Scotland, the Institute of Directors Scotland, National Union of Students Scotland, Reform Scotland, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations Scotland, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Youth Parliament. Many more partners are expected to sign up over the coming weeks and months.
4. For more information contact Charlotte McNeill on 0779 060 1995

As First Minister Alex Salmond announces the Scottish Government’s consultation on the referendum, SCVO is calling for an end to political wrangling and working for party advantage so that people have the space to consider what they want for the future of Scotland.

Martin Sime, Chief Executive, SCVO, said: “So far the debate on Scotland’s future has been dominated by political disputes over legal powers, timing of the referendum and what the questions should be.

“Now that both public consultations are underway, politicians ought to step back and give people a chance to think about what the referendum means to them and the type of Scotland they want to create.

“It is very important that we create the right conditions for a debate that is opened out to everyone and is connected to the issues people face and the aspirations they have for the future.

“Scotland’s constitutional future concerns us all.”

ENDS

18 January 2012

For immediate release

THIRD SECTOR CAN HELP REDUCE YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

SCVO is pleased to announce that its Community Jobs Scotland (CJS) initiative has reached a key milestone – in 5 months more than 1,000 young unemployed people have got a job working in the third sector.

John Barr, 21, has become the 1,000th young person to find work through Community Jobs Scotland. John who is working as a Trainee Outdoor Instructor at the Adventure Centre for Education in Girvan, said:

“Life is pretty boring when you’ve no money and nothing to keep you busy.

“Finding work with the Adventure Centre for Education through CJS was great – and it’s not your ordinary nine-to-five job. I’m involved in all sorts of outdoor activities. Every week is different, early starts and long days.

“So far I’ve assisted with bush craft and conservation sessions. Today we have been abseiling with a primary school group. The training is on-going and has been great so far – they always make it fun but I’ve also learned a lot. It is a cool place to work but I am also taking on a lot of responsibility – when you’re working with groups doing outdoor activities you need to make sure the people taking part are safe.”

John is one of more than 1,000 unemployed 16-24 year olds in Scotland to get back into work or find their first job through the SCVO-led initiative that will create 2,000 paid jobs for young unemployed people with third sector organisations.

Martin Sime, Chief Executive, SCVO, said:

“We are delighted to have reached this milestone, just five months since the Community Jobs Scotland initiative got underway.

“Not only is it creating real jobs for those at most risk of slipping into long-term unemployment, it is also helping them to develop new skills that will improve their employment prospects and supporting charities struggling to meet staffing costs.

“We can’t afford to ignore the potential of the third sector to help tackle this youth unemployment crisis. The 500+ organisations in our consortium tell us they have capacity to create double the number of jobs available through this initiative. The Scottish Government must find a way to expand and replicate it.

“Scotland’s young unemployed people want a job, want to work and want the opportunity to access the labour market.”

ENDS

Notes to editors:

1. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is the national body representing the interests of charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises. The Scottish third sector turns over £4.4 billion a year and employs 137,000 people in over 45,000 organisations. For more on SCVO see www.scvo.org.uk

2. Community Jobs Scotland (CJS), created by SCVO and backed with Scottish Government funding, seeks to deliver 2,000 paid jobs to young unemployed people through a network of nearly 500 third sector organisations in each of the 32 local authority areas, helping them to develop new skills that improves their employment prospects and generates community benefit.

3. Interviews available with Martin Sime, Chief Executive, and John Downie, Director of Public Affairs, SCVO.

4. A selection of case studies attached about young people who have found work through Community Jobs Scotland.

5. For more information or to arrange an interview, contact John Downie, Director of Public Affairs, SCVO on 0753 054 2263 or Julia Morrison, Communications Assistant, on 0779 060 1995

The most recent funding updates are only available to SCVO members. The password for this edition of the funding update is in your latest member bulletin. If you have lost your password please email membership@scvo.org.uk and we will email it to you.

Common Agricultural Policy 18 January 2012

SCVO welcomes the continuing scrutiny by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change & Environment Committee of the European Commission’s proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

It is important to remember that CAP reform is not just about farming. The rural development measures contained in Pillar Two of the CAP have the potential to contribute to a much wider kind of rural economic and community development.

SCVO believes a far greater proportion of the funding available under the SRDP should be accessible by rural communities and the rural third sector to develop local assets, facilities and services.

This is a decision that will be taken by the Scottish Government in the design of the new SRDP.

Key points:

• The current Scotland Rural Development Programme, under Pillar Two of the CAP, has a value of around £1.6 billion. Despite its aspirations to support ‘wider rural development’, less than 15% of this funding is available to rural communities and small non-farm enterprises, mostly through the LEADER programme.

• The vast majority of Rural Development funding goes to farmers and other land managers, to diversify their activities and deliver “public goods”.

• Farming accounts for fewer than one in five jobs in rural areas, but the overall annual subsidy paid to the agriculture industry is £500 million, costing the average Scottish household around £250 a year.

• Most evaluations of current rural policy, such as the OECD report on Scottish Rural Policy, find a strong sectoral bias in favour of funding agriculture at the expense of other rural sectors.

• The Scottish Government’s recent policy paper “Our Rural Future” identified the top priorities for rural Scotland as Infrastructure, Land Use, Community Participation, Community Enterprise and Business & Skills. Investing in these provides economic as well as social benefits.

• The new SRDP, being formulated over the next 18 months, is an opportunity for the Scottish Government to join up their wider rural policy aspirations with the main funding instrument at their disposal and deliver some serious money through the measures in the new programme that can benefit communities.

• These measures can fund investment in community services, local infrastructure, microenterprises, networking and capacity building, and there is also an opportunity for increased funding for a renewed and refreshed LEADER programme.

• It is time for a rebalancing of investment in rural areas and for an increased share of the next programme’s funding to be targeted on supporting communities to take control of and develop their local assets, to improve their local facilities and services and to support small enterprises including social enterprises.

For more information, please contact Norman MacAskill, Head of Rural Policy at Norman.macaskill@scvo.org.uk or 07885 218308

Katherine Trebeck, Research & Policy Advisor, Oxfam Scotland

As the Scottish Government explores reform of our public services, it could do worse than take a wide, generous and expansive view of prevention that encompasses the structural causes of poverty and injustice – inequality, inequality, inequality. The scale of the change this implies has recently been highlighted by the new economics foundation:

A state that gives priority to prevention will have a different framework for decision-making – one that recognises the value of investing in upstream measures, where benefits accrue across sectors and over the longer term…It will invest to prevent the waste of human potential by fighting inequality and entrenched patterns of unemployment. It will act to…[keep] resources circulating locally

To date, pursuit of policies that prioritise a narrow economic goal, such as welfare reforms that sanction too brutally or push people into poor quality work lead to downstream costs on other agencies (such as debt advice, health services and the criminal justice system). This ‘failure demand spending’ is reactive and is merely dealing with the symptoms, not the causes, of growing inequalities in our society.

For example, as public service reform takes place, the worthy and important focus on Early Years must not mask the wider socio-economic structures that perpetuate poverty and inequality. Children are not poor in a vacuum. Children live in families, in communities. They are affected by the economic and social pressures that affect both.

Moreover, as the Christie commission’s report on ‘The Future Delivery of Public Services’ recognised: ‘effective services must be designed and for people and communities – not delivered top down for administrative convenience’ and would involve ‘working closely with individuals and communities to understand their needs, maximise talents and resources, support self reliance, and build resilience.’ This demands a substantial cultural shift in the way that agencies have historically operated in Scotland where decisions have been taken about people and services designed for them with no account taken of what the communities want for themselves. Agencies have operated in silos and this has in the past led to duplication of services and in times of budget cuts a ‘bunker mentality’ that does not put the individuals or community’s needs at the core of the service.

Our partners often report that official narrow mindedness prevents creative, innovative and community-led initiatives from being supported, nor community agendas being followed. For example, in Govan numerous statutory agencies did not ensure that local women felt sufficiently consulted, included or respected in regeneration attempts. In Govanhill, it has recently been reported that ‘many operatives…did not know other officers from other agencies working on aspects of often the same issue. Furthermore it is clear that many partners were unaware what the other did to any great extent.’

Reform of public services thus needs to recalibrate how we meet current and future needs, with both policy makers and delivery agents stepping away from a deficit approach to an assets-based approach that recognises the strength of communities. Enlightened policy making recognises community assets and encourages them, rather than subjecting them to brutal economic competition. This requires support for community ownership; substantive community involvement; and facilitation of economic organisations which bring people together, rather than dividing them on the basis of competition or comparison. This means ensuring participation in economic activity is widespread – sharing ownership and sharing rewards.

In its reforms the public sector could look to work undertaken by communities themselves and by the third sector. There is a great deal of scope to involve communities in participatory budgeting ensuring that money is allocated to things that communities value and will use. Real public service reform means directing state revenue to areas and projects that people themselves determine – real agenda setting, not just consultation on the details of a fait accomplie.

David Griffiths, Chief Executive, Ecas

Those who remember the days of phoning “your” branch of the bank and talking to the Manager never cease complaining about call centres.  So why have the named social workers who knew their patients been replaced by call centres?  My thoughts on Public Sector Reform come from this angle and I hope this article explains why.   After all, the public sector is largely about providing a service so thinking about the issue from the customer’s viewpoint may be useful.  But then, who is the customer – the taxpayer, the service user or the elected representatives (Councillor, MSP or MP)?

Discussion about public sector reform tends to discuss who delivers the service and at what cost.  It is unfortunate that the discussion rarely considers what is needed and by whom.  People who rely on carer support to lead their lives are looking for quality, continuity, appropriate services and a system that is easy to use.  So why is the support necessary for a disabled person split between different providers for benefits, health and social care.  It is confusing for the person receiving the support, and it also appears to be a recipe for confusion and mismanagement.

Those who require intimate or complex care really value continuity.   This should not be surprising as it takes time for a carer to understand the needs and difficulties of an individual client, and some care is of a very personal nature.  There is a feeling of trust and, to an extent, dependence.  I have heard a change of carer being described as being like bereavement.  So, we want a system that provides continuity.  That does not really fit with 3-year contracts and repeat tendering.  Nor does it fit low paid workers with low self-esteem who cannot wait to move on.

Choice, control and flexibility are also important.  The ability to get up and to go to bed at hours that suit the individual and not the staff rota is important.  The provision of care needs to be based on independent living and to acknowledge that leisure and recreation are important parts of living that are part of general well-being.  And that general well-being is an important part of the preventative agenda.  So, transferring someone from their bed to their armchair, feeding them a dissolved oxo cube, coming back 8 hours later and transferring them back to their bed may not be the answer.

In the past 12 months I have given evidence to three Parliamentary Committees.  It has been good to hear some politicians agreeing that designing the system and then trying to get the individual to fit it is doing business the wrong way round.  Let us decide what our society should be doing for its vulnerable members, then work out how we do it.  That would be real Public Service Reform – designing a system that delivers a quality service to those members of our society who need it regardless of whose budget it is, which government or council department or NHS Trust delivers it or whether the preventative spend is worth it if it saves someone else’s budget.

The House of Lords voted this week against three core elements of the Bill; removal of exemptions for people disabled from childhood, lack of concessions for those recovering from cancer and the time-limiting of contributory Employment and Support Allowance. This adds to their rejection last year of housing benefit reductions for people with spare bedrooms which would have hit many people with disability support needs. This has been an important victory and vindication for third sector campaigners in Scotland and across the UK.

In Scotland last year, disability and anti-poverty campaigners campaigned intensely to highlight the negative impact from the UK Welfare Reform Bill in late 2011. This led to the Scottish Parliament withholding legislative consent for key provisions of the Bill, demonstrating a rejection of the impact of the Bill’s provision on Scotland’s most vulnerable, and a considerable show of strength and purpose from Scotland’s third sector.

Certainly many in our sector feel the UK Government started with an admirable premise to reform and simplify what has become an overly bureaucratic and unfit for purpose UK welfare system. However, the approach that emerged from the Coalition’s plans – to maximize spending savings within every reform at the expense of basic human dignity has been anathema to much of our sector, and so it seems for many in the House of Lords.

Withholding consent was an unprecedented move by the Scottish Parliament and sent an important message, not just in Scotland, but to campaigners and politicians across the UK. It is quite possible that this action could have contributed in no small way to emboldening peers to rebel against the Commons. With the healthcare reforms in England moving into their endgame, many more MPs are now likely to refocus their attention on welfare reform. Looking at Scotland, they can now see a position which supports reform without attacking society’s most vulnerable.

Could this be the tipping point for the Bill?

If the Welfare Reform Bill were to cave in, the job would be far from over. The sector needs to start thinking now about what kind of welfare system would work for the people and communities it supports. We need a system that supports people to contribute rather than sanctioning them for being unable to do so. Moreover, we are now uniquely placed to have this debate as part of a much wider conversation about the future of our society and economy in Scotland.

• SCVO welcomes the commitment set out in the Public Focus Strategy to involve the public in more of OSCR’s activity. We see this as a positive shift, which will hopefully encourage a more open and transparent approach to charity regulation in Scotland.
• It is our view that any improvements undertaken should see OSCR continue to limit its activity to those areas which relate directly to its statutory functions. Any methods of engaging with the public should directly correlate to the five statutory functions set out in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act.
• Methods for involving the public in the design of scrutiny activity should be explored as a way of ensuring that it continues to be effective and proportional in meeting the needs of charities and the public.
• Improving accessibility should be an ongoing agenda for OSCR and should be prioritised at every level of operation within the organisation.

Read the response in full (PDF).

Martin Sime, SCVO

SCVO Media Release

11 January 2012
For immediate release

SCVO calls for a debate about the future of Scotland which includes all options

SCVO is today calling on politicians of all parties to have a different conversation about the future of Scotland that opens out the debate about the type of Scotland we all want to see.

Martin Sime, Chief Executive, SCVO, said:

“SCVO is working with its membership and others across civil society to open out the debate on the future of Scotland to people across the length and breadth of the country.

“The conversation about Scotland’s constitutional future must not be hijacked for short term political advantage – we need a debate about the kind of Scotland we want to see.

“SCVO believes we need to have a different discussion about the future of Scotland with all possibilities on the table.

“The polls show that two-thirds of people in Scotland support more powers for the Scottish Parliament, so there is a strong appetite for having a healthy third option question included in the referendum.

“The people of Scotland should be able to vote for the Scotland they want to see, whether that is through the status quo, independence or any other option for more devolved powers.

“We and our members want to create an open and frank debate that engages people. Our constitutional future is too important to be left to a few. The future of our country concerns us all, so there mustn’t be any restriction to the breadth or reach of this historic debate.

“This is about democracy not politics.”

ENDS

Notes to editors:

1. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is the national body representing the interests of charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises.  The Scottish third sector turns over £4.4 billion a year and employs 137,000 people in over 45,000 organisations.  For more on SCVO see www.scvo.org.uk
2. For other comment from SCVO on the referendum:
   http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/the-arts/arts-blog/martin_sime_speak_up_now_to_help_shape_scotland_s_future_1_2011200
   http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/10/scottish-independence-referendum-autumn-2014?newsfeed=true
   http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/comment/letters/referendum-lower-the-voting-age-and-have-two-questions.16422393
   http://www.scvo.org.uk/scvo-news/blog-referendum-bin-the-political-posturing-and-let-the-people-decide/
3. John Downie, Director of Public Affairs, SCVO is available for interview and comment
4. For more information contact Charlotte McNeill, SCVO Communications Officer, on 07790 601 995

Last night the topic of conversation was: “Why is David Cameron pushing a Scottish referendum – doesn’t he have bigger things to worry about like sorting the economy?”

The view of a friend is that the PM is using the referendum as a distraction. Not a bad guess given that Tory Euro-sceptics won’t be happy with the UK’s contribution to the IMF being used to ‘bail-out’ – as they see it – failing Euro-zone economies. 

And the notion of holding a straight yes/no referendum was dismissed because it wouldn’t put the constitutional issue to bed since an apparent majority of Scots favour more powers for the Parliament (while stopping short of independence). A ‘no’ vote for independence won’t make that go away – if anything it’ll intensify efforts for further devolution.

The consensus was that we weren’t happy about the Westminster government trying to dictate the terms of a referendum. You get the same reaction when any UK government dictates to us – Tory or Labour. Even my Labour supporting friends backs get up when ‘London Labour’ tries to dictate to them.   

But what got me going this morning was not the political permutations or implications but Sir Ming Campbell’s quote on the front-page of today’s Scotsman: “Could it be that the bravehearts are not quite as brave as they have been before”.

I thought the comment was insulting and patronizing to me as a Scot. I usually don’t get riled by politicians stupid posturing comments but this one really annoyed me. And I’m sure I wasn’t the only one.

The ‘unionist’ parties will have to be careful in attacking the SNP. When they reduce the debate to ridiculous Scottish stereotypes they demean us all as Scots.

Now, like most Scots I’m not aligned to any particular party – despite some people thinking I am – and I hate all that Mel Gibson Braveheart crap, but rhetoric which attacks our sense of pride in our nation (albeit an over-sentimentalised one) may begin to turn many voters against the unionists.

This is one of the many reasons why the debate on the future of Scotland is too important to be left to the politicians.

I agree with an ex-politician Brian Wilson, writing in today’s Scotsman  - we need to offer the people of Scotland a more rounded choice.

Two-thirds of people in Scotland support more powers for the Scottish Parliament so there is a strong appetite for having a healthy third option question included in the referendum. It’s a no-brainer. This is about democracy not politics. The people of Scotland should be able to vote on the Scotland they want to see, whether that is the status quo, independence or a third option for more devolved powers.

The fact is, despite the success of devolution in key areas – employability and welfare for example – it isn’t working as well as it could.

The Labour position of more devolution in principle but talking about it after the referendum just isn’t credible, especially after the fiasco and limitations of the Calman Commission.

The real point of all of this is that over the next 1,000 days we should be having a debate about the kind of Scotland we want to create – what are we going to use the powers for rather than just about which ones we need. The ends not the means.

In some ways it doesn’t matter what the final constitutional settlement is – it’s about the debate. Holding a referendum is an opportunity to have an open, transparent and sensible debate about the future of Scotland.

What are our aspirations for our economy, our environment, on how we deal with and solve the issues we have with endemic poverty?

For me, the key question is: What is the type of country we all want to live in?

The latest furore about the Referendum highlights a rather curious fact. Opinion polls repeatedly suggest strong support among two-thirds of the people of Scotland for more powers for the Scottish Parliament, yet all of our political parties seem to want to rule this out.

Of course much of what we hear about legalities and timing is shallow posturing designed for short term political advantage, rather than long-term thinking about the type of Scotland we want to see in the future.

Nothing I have heard over the last few days suggests that our politicians want to move beyond rhetoric and party manoeuvres when it comes to our future governance.

A better starting point for a mature debate would be to get people talking and thinking about Scotland’s future and that all options are viable and on the table.

We should then use the time between now and the Referendum date to debate and refine the choices that have to be made, to improve understanding about the implications of those choices and to generate enthusiasm for participation in the poll.

Doing it this way, everyone in Scotland should be in a better position to make a decision in the referendum that’s right for them and for Scotland.

These hallmarks of a civilised approach to such a pivotal event are conspicuous by their absence from current political discourse. Is the future of Scotland too important just to be left to the politicians? I think it is.

The Gathering is Scotland’s unique, free event. With over 50 events covering funding, volunteering, health, employment, policyand much more, you’re bound to discover lots of learning and development opportunities.

If you want to be among the 3000+ visitors attending Gathering 2012 take a look at our packed 2 day programme of events and book now to avoid disappointment.

Key points include:

1. UK Welfare reform will have a massive impact on Scottish budgets going forward, the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government need to ensure they fully engage the third sector in assessing the impact of the reforms on devolved services.
2. SCVO would argue that it is essential for the regulations, that will be part of secondary legislation, to be adapted to take into account the Scottish circumstances. There is precedence of the Scottish Parliament having this privilege in the recent past and this should be sought in this instance.
3. How can we instead, move to a vision of welfare reform that works for Scotland, to ask the questions: ‘what kind of welfare in Scotland do we want to see?’, ‘how do we get there?’ and ‘which powers would we need?’

Download the full briefing as a PDF.

If you’re interested in exploring a community-led hydro development here are some things to think about:

• Has land important to your community been identified as one of the areas available for development? Check the map (select the map layer for Forest Renewables > Community Hydro)
• If you are interested in exploring hydro energy opportunities you must submit an Expression of Interest form by 30 June 2012.
• You can put in your expression of interest even if your community group is not yet fully constituted. See eligibility requirements as outlined on p7 of the National Forest Land Scheme Guidance (please note that the new SCIO structure is now included in the eligibility criteria)

You can find out more about the process for groups to select sites, undertake initial feasibility work and develop a NFLS application on the Forestry Commission website.

A similar process is planned for community-led wind energy projects and due to start around the end of January 2012 – keep checking the Forestry Commission website for updates.

How SCVO can help:

• If you’re not already officially constituted, SCVO provides information on how to structure and constitute different types of groups and organisations. For more information you can contact our Information Service on 0800 169 0022 or email enquiries@scvo.org.uk
• If you are an SCVO member with an annual turnover of less than £500,000 you can access up to 2 hours of free legal advice.
• SCVO members also have access to a fortnightly funding update, which could help you find sources of funding for renewable projects.
• Members of SCVO may also be eligible to apply for a share of our new loan scheme run in partnership with Unity Trust Bank PLC.

You can also get support from:

• Community Energy Scotland
• Community Woodlands Association
• Development Trusts Association Scotland

Much of the Government’s revised indicators speak to the work of the third sector. The set of indicators, as revised, are generally progressive with a much bigger focus on the needs of older people, vulnerable and young. There are many indicators focused on improving outcomes for children and Scotland’s dire health record. Ambitious indicators for a greener Scotland have been retained and at least on the face of it, don’t appear to clash with indicators relating to transport and energy production.

There is a clear sense here that Scotland faces stark challenges and the indicators have been rightfully framed as ‘improving’ rather than ‘maintaining’ conditions for Scotland’s people and communities. This is an important shift and a welcome one.

Last week we outlined five ways to put people at the heart of Scotland’s economy. Much of this was about recognition and support for the work of the third sector in reaching some of our most marginalised communities. It also pointed to the role our sector can play in bringing fresh perspectives to measuring what really matters in Scotland.

However, the only national indicator that specifically promoted the third sector was ‘growing the social economy turnover’. This has been removed. It was a flawed indicator which did not capture the true potential for the third sector. In fact the sector’s income had been growing anyway year-on-year until the recession and public spending cuts hit our sector during the last couple of years. The Government have realised that this kind of measure cannot capture their support for the sector.

The question now remains, how will the Government measure their aspirations for the third sector without an indicator?

It is not enough to say that the sector has a role to play in achieving all of the outcomes. That kind of measure is no-one’s measure. We need Government to work with the sector to come up with another indicator, specific to our sector that gives it the authority it needs to ensure that public sector partners at all levels prioritise the role of the third sector in delivering national outcomes.

The most recent funding updates are only available to SCVO members. The password for this edition of the funding update is in your latest member bulletin. If you have lost your password please email membership@scvo.org.uk and we will email it to you.

A significant section of the report concerns the shift to preventative spending and SCVO is quoted extensively on this topic. Read SCVO’s original briefing.

As detailed below, we have had a significant influence on the Committee’s recommendations and requests for clarification from the Scottish Government. All in all a great result following some intensive lobbying.

Change Funds

As a result of our concerns, the Committee has invited the Government to clarify:

• whether there has been a review of progress in implementing the Change Fund and whether this will be made publicly available;
• whether there is a need for Ministers to intervene to ensure that the money provided through the Change Fund is being spent appropriately; and
• the level of supplementary funding which it expects local authorities to contribute to the Change Fund.

Political leadership

SCVO is also quoted on the need for political leadership to drive forward the prevention agenda. On this front the Committee has asked the Government for clarification on how it will:

• ensure that the preventative spending agenda is embedded across the delivery of public services;
• respond to calls for greater direction on the national priorities for preventative spending and the agenda that should be taken forward at a local level;
• ensure that national policies which promote preventative spending are developed across directorates to facilitate collaborative working at a local level;
• help facilitate the pooling of resources by local organisations in the implementation of national policies promoting preventative spending;
• create incentives, in addition to the change funds, for organisations which embrace the preventative spending; and
• collate and disseminate examples of local good practice in preventative spending.

Embedding prevention in public services

Following our comments about the need to define areas of early priority for prevention, the Committee had this to say:

The Committee considers that, given the restrictions of the current financial climate, difficult decisions regarding disinvestment will need to be made to ensure that preventative spending becomes integral to service delivery in the long term. The Committee considers that the Scottish Government has a key role to play in leading the debate on the areas on which preventative spending at both a national and local level should initially focus and where disinvestment should occur. It therefore seeks clarification from the Scottish Government on how it plans to—

• lead the public debate on the need for investment and disinvestment to ensure that preventative spending becomes integral to public service delivery in the long term;
• draw up a list of early intervention objectives and criteria by which decisions on investment and disinvestment should be made; and
• set out the priority areas that should initially form the focus of preventative spending at both a national and local level.

Role of the third sector

Some of our other concerns are directly reflected in the Committee’s request for the Scottish Government to:

• detail how it will actively involve the third sector in the delivery of preventative spend policies and services;
• detail how it is ensuring that there are no unnecessary statutory or institutional barriers which prevent the third sector from participating in such delivery; and
• demonstrate that there is ‘parity of esteem’ between the third and public sectors in designing and commissioning services.

Meanwhile, other Committees have also published their reports as part of the scrutiny process led by the Finance Committee. Their reports can be found on the Scottish Parliament website. 

EET Committee

The Energy, Enterprise and Tourism Committee quotes SCVO’s comments on preventative spending and mentions John Downie’s oral evidence that the third sector is often the most cost effective option, but not necessarily the cheapest, when local authorities are procuring services.

Local Government and Regeneration Committee

In particular, their report mentions our concern that the Change Funds are not in themselves sufficient to steer the transition to preventative spending, and that too little of the Change Fund resources have been allocated to preventative measures. The Committee also highlights our suggestion of a central repository of robustly evaluated projects, models and methodologies for prevention.

Health and Sport Committee

Although SCVO and the third sector are not mentioned by the Health and Sport Committee, their report includes significant mention of the reshaping care change fund as well as the savings and outcomes that can be expected from a preventative agenda. However, the Committee seems to see these policy areas as a matter for health and social care statutory sectors.

Download the autumn 2011 edition (PDF)

How to do things differently
The Third Sector Manifesto highlights the steps that need to be taken to foster a thriving third sector in Scotland. These are tough times but there is a unique opportunity to do things differently.

The third sector and the third Scottish Parliament
As we head towards dissolution SCVO takes a look back at this interesting period of Scottish political history, and what has worked for the third sector.

Thinking differently
SCVO launches a new publication showcasing fresh ideas from key people in civil society.

Scotland Bill
The good, the bad and the elephant in the room. A round up of where things stand and what the implications are for the third sector.

Download the spring 2011 edition (PDF) Winter 2010 In this issue:

State of the Sector
SCVO has launched new online resource to share insights into the real life impact of Scotland’s vibrant third sector. Find out how to tap into the online resource and read the growing bank of case studies.

Delivering a healthier Scotland
SCVO and Voluntary Health Scotland have published a new report into addressing the paradox of increased demand and tighter budgets in our health and care services.

The Draft Budget
The Scottish Government’s Draft budget says that it wants to secure the development of an innovative, sustainable and inclusive third sector. Is it going in the right direction to achieve this?

Third sector policy forums
In the lead up to the Scottish Parliamentary elections, SCVO has hosted a series of policy forums to allow third sector representatives to grill the main political parties on their priorities for the year ahead. Read an overview in this edition.

Download the winter 2010 edition (PDF) ]]> http://www.scvo.org.uk/policy/policy-digest/policy-digest-archive/feed/ 0 http://www.scvo.org.uk/scvo-media-release/new-50m-scheme-to-build-third-sector-business-centres-across-scotland/ http://www.scvo.org.uk/scvo-media-release/new-50m-scheme-to-build-third-sector-business-centres-across-scotland/#comments Thu, 08 Dec 2011 00:01:30 +0000 cmcneill http://www.scvo.org.uk/?p=52807 SCVO and Unity Trust Bank PLC are pleased to announce the creation of a £50m loan scheme available at £10m/year to create third sector business centres across Scotland.

The scheme will be open to SCVO members for the sole or joint purchase of new build premises or the refurbishment of existing properties, helping organisations to build up an asset base and generate savings from shared back office services.

“This £50m strategic capital investment scheme will help to secure the financial sustainability of the third sector and enable it to deliver more high quality, cost-effective services to people in Scotland,” said John Ferguson, Director of Development and Programmes, SCVO.

“Following the success of SCVO’s Brunswick House, a charity hub that opened in Glasgow’s Merchant City in May, the new scheme will allow more third sector organisations to focus on what they do best – delivering vital services to the people of Scotland – safe in the knowledge that they are building assets and operating in an efficient, cost-effective way.

“But more than improving charities’ balance sheets, ownership will empower them to tailor their offices and facilities to the needs of their staff and the people who use their services. “This is also a prime example of the key contribution the sector can make to the Scottish economy.”

John Brooks, Executive Director, Unity Trust Bank, said: “As a socially-focused bank, Unity is delighted to bring this scheme to the sector with SCVO, which has a great track record of active participation with its members.

“Unity is committed to supporting organisations that improve communities and benefit society, and this scheme fits neatly with that core purpose. In the current climate, we know how difficult it can be for organisations to access finance, so we wanted to do something practical to show the sector that we’re here to help them – this scheme delivers on that.”

Welcoming the announcement, John Swinney MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, said: “The third sector plays a vital role in delivering our priorities to support jobs and promote economic growth. The Scottish Government is committed to building the sector’s capacity and resilience and to strengthening its role in the design and delivery of public services.

“We therefore welcome this initiative by SCVO and Unity Trust Bank which will build on our support, helping to improve the capability of individual third sector organisation in delivering high quality public services and enhancing the sector’s economic contribution.”

ENDS

Notes to editors: 1. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is the national body representing the interests of charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises. The Scottish third sector turns over £4.4 billion a year and employs 137,000 people in over 45,000 organisations. For more on SCVO see www.scvo.org.uk

2. Unity Trust Bank (“Unity”) is a leading provider of banking services to charities, voluntary groups and other social economy organisations. Since its formation nearly thirty years ago, the Bank has sought to deliver high quality banking services, in a way that places social responsibility and the common good at the forefront of its business

3. The scheme will be formally launched at The Gathering, taking place in Glasgow’s SECC on 29 February and 1 March 2012. Initial expressions of interest should be directed to Cathie Rowell on 0141 559 5003 or John Ferguson on 0141 559 5002

4. John Ferguson, Director of Development and Programmes, and John Downie, Director of Public Affairs, SCVO are available for interview and comment

5. For more information, to arrange an interview or for a more detailed briefing, contact Charlotte McNeill at SCVO on 0779 060 1995

SCVO believes that European Union funding must:

• Be easier for smaller organisations to access
• Be less bureaucratically burdensome
• Be more consistent in its approach to funding across all thematic funding programmes of the EU
• Ensure a key role for third sector organisations in setting priorities
• Avoid domestication of the funds

Download the full SCVO consultation response on European Structural Funds (PDF)

This consultation response was submitted on 6 December 2011.

SCVO Briefing: Five ways to put people at the heart of Scotland’s economy (PDF).

Covering:

• young people and jobs
• credit unions
• community renewables
• engagement in the economy
• challenging GDP and the third sector’s offer to to the economy

A report published by SCVO calls for a radical new approach to care that puts people first.

‘A life worth living’, written by Alan Sinclair and published by SCVO this November, sets out a number of recommendations on how to improve care for older people in Scotland.

The report calls on service providers to engage with Scotland’s people to design cost-effective personalised care which puts people at the heart of services.

Other key recommendations include improving the measures of well-being in older age, ensuring commissioning and tendering rules are more third sector friendly and supporting self help and community capacity building work.

SCVO believes that an ageing population and the associated unsustainable costs for Scotland’s public services mean that we will all have to take more responsibility for our own and each other’s health and care. We are living longer than ever before and we need to see immediate action to make sure that these extra years are worth living.

Only a major rethink of how we organise and deploy resources will help to address the current mismatch between what older people expect and the quality of care they are likely to receive.

The third sector has a vital role to play in helping to make this happen and it must be supported to act as a key contributor to the design of sustainable people-centred, flexible services for our ageing population.

It’s time for the state, the NHS, local authorities and the third sector to find new ways of working together to help people stay healthier and happier in their own communities, and out of hospitals and nursing homes.

Read the summary and the full report

The third sector is working together to ensure the new Scottish Rural Development Programme brings more social and community benefit to rural areas.

Diverse rural interests mean that it can be hard to muster a collective challenge to the powerful farming lobby and to strive for a more balanced approach to rural development policy that gives equal weight to social, economic and environmental interests.

In the current phase of the £1.6 billion Rural Development Programme very little funding has been dedicated to social and community aspects of rural life.

The good news is that the small proportion that has been made available to communities has delivered significant community benefits ranging from village halls to swimming pools and a filling station, as well as a wide range of innovative, locally developed initiatives through the LEADER programme.

While the overarching framework for the rural development programme comes from the European Commission the design and implementation is the job of the Scottish Government. The current administration is undoubtedly sympathetic to the needs of the wider rural community, and has published a policy paper, Our Rural Future, that identifies the top priorities for rural Scotland as infrastructure, land use, community participation, community enterprise, and business and skills.

With a new SRDP for 2014 to 2020 being designed over the next year, SCVO is keen to encourage and support the third sector to work together to lobby for an increased share of the next programme’s investment to target the social and community dimension of rural life.

With the new SRDP, an opportunity exists to build further on this approach, to join up the wider rural policy aspirations with the available funding and to deliver some serious investment for the benefit of communities.  SCVO is keen to see more of this money allocated to community services, local infrastructure, micro-enterprises, networking and capacity building.  There is also an opportunity to fund a renewed and refreshed LEADER programme, delivering support for rural development through implementing local development strategies.

SCVO will bring together third sector organisations with a rural dimension on these issues in a seminar on rural development at The Gathering to facilitate a strong collective response from the third sector that ensures a fair share of the new rural development funding comes to the communities and third sector groups who are so vital to Scotland’s rural future.

SCVO survey finds that the third sector is contemplating an uncertain future

Third sector organisations are struggling to meet increasing demand for services as funding cuts take grip, SCVO’s State of the Sector survey has found.

Three quarters of the 275 respondents expect demand for their services to continue to grow over the next year and with the sector still trying to adjust to a £96m drop in income in 2010, more than a third of Scottish charities were forced to use their life-line reserves to keep services open.

Nearly half (47%) of organisations are unsure about the overall future of their organisation and one fifth (19%) of organisations expect staff numbers to reduce over the same period.

Despite the third sector becoming more prominent politically and consensus being reached that it should play a key role in the delivery of preventative public services, confidence appears to be low across the sector with most charities believing that their organisations will fail to grow or even reduce in size over the next year.

The survey also found that 39% of respondents plan to recruit more volunteers over the next year and 86% are planning to develop new income sources.

Charities are also pessimistic about the fate of the whole sector. 80% expect that the financial situation for the third sector will get worse in the next 12 months.

If the sector is to maximise its potential to prevent social problems and generate savings for the public purse, it is in urgent need of more stability in the shape of longer term funding agreements of three to five years. More investment must be matched with a better deal from the public sector that recognises the sector as an equal partner.

The secondary legislation on welfare reform must be aligned to Scotland’s health and social care system.

It has been dubbed the biggest reform to welfare since Beveridge introduced the system and coming at time when the most vulnerable in society are under increased pressure as unemployment soars and the economy shows little sign of improving, the debate on welfare reform is gathering pace.

Representatives of Scotland’s third sector gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Health and Sport committee on the proposed changes, helping to trigger a welcome shift in direction of the debate away from constitutional matters to focus on the implications of the Welfare Reform Bill for the people of Scotland.

As the Health and Sport committee heard at a third sector briefing event on 15 November, the Bill at present is merely a framework onto which further detail will be added through secondary legislation, which at present the Scottish Parliament has no scrutiny rights over.

The third sector, and SCVO, believes Scotland’s parliamentarians should be permitted to scrutinise the Westminster secondary legislation. Members of the Health and Sport committee are also supportive of long-term scrutiny of this legislation and the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy Nicola Sturgeon has strongly welcomed on-going scrutiny from a stand-alone committee of the Scottish Parliament, saying: “The journey does not end when the bill receives royal assent – indeed, in many respects, it only begins at that point. It is very important for the Parliament to oversee the implementation.”

The Welfare Reform Bill is set to impose a one-size fits all model for the whole of the United Kingdom and ride roughshod over Scotland’s devolved competencies and progressive social policy strategies that so many in civic Scotland have worked hard to create.

SCVO is urging civic society in Scotland to ask itself: what kind of welfare do we want to see in Scotland and what do we need to deliver this? Any discussion on welfare reform ought to begin by finding answers to these questions.

SCVO welcomes the new Change Fund guidance but calls for further debate.

The Scottish Government has strengthened its guidance for the 2012-2013 Reshaping Care for Older People Change Fund in response to lobbying from SCVO and the third sector.

The Change Fund, worth £80m a year for each of the next two years and £70m for the third, is intended to help the shift to a preventative model of care for older people and see the third sector work with the NHS and local authorities to design and implement new services in each local authority area across Scotland.

There had been concerns across the third sector that issues which arose in the pilot year of the Change Fund had not been addressed in the first draft of guidance. In some parts of Scotland, local change partnerships allocated money to inappropriate projects and excluded the third sector from the decision making process.

The final version of the guidance makes it clearer that prevention and early intervention should be the priority for Change Fund spending and that the third sector must be treated as an equal partner in deciding how funds are allocated.

While the new guidance is a welcome step in the right direction, there is still a great deal of work to be done to ensure that the Change Fund is handled correctly. To that end, SCVO is currently working with MSPs from across the parties to seek a Members Debate in Parliament to explore this issue further.

It was probably just a coincidence that on same day Jim McColl – a leading member of the Smith Group – attacked Iain MacMillan, head of the CBI in Scotland for saying more tax powers for the Scottish Parliament could make it more unattractive to do business.

The £30m is very welcome and, despite my doubts, it would be churlish not to welcome a dedicated Minister – although appointing a Minister in response to every crisis is a very Labour thing to do.

But the issue is not even the money or the Minister but implementing the right policy that will make a difference to the lives of young people – not just giving them a training place, but a real job.

And that is as much more to do with economic policy than employment policy. The official announcement on the widely leaked £60 billion programme of works – new schools, housing and roads – should be a welcome boost to the economy and the job prospects of young people.

Hopefully the new Minister will recognise the point made by editorial in Friday’s Herald:

“It should not be assumed that all youth job opportunities must come from the private sector.

“Far more should be done to build on the success of the Community Jobs Scotland initiative, delivered through the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. The third sector has a vital role to play in building the skills and confidence of young people”.

And as one candidate touted for the job of Minister for Youth Employment in the weekend’s papers said to me: “if there is a successful model there it should be built upon”

The potential for the third sector to increase its economic contribution through increased delivery of public services is significant but at a tipping point.

At a time when voluntary organisations are struggling with declining resources and are being challenged to do more, particularly on prevention and early intervention, Scotland’s young people are the solution.

Through its delivery of CJS, SCVO and Social Enterprise Scotland have attracted the commitment of nearly 500 third sector organisations across all of Scotland to support young unemployed people through offering job opportunities in a wide spectrum of occupations. These organizations, who do not see employability as ‘their business’, can offer real work experience to young unemployed people because they have the potential for growth and need to increase their capacity.

With thousands more third sector organisations across Scotland who could offer meaningful opportunities – for the mutual benefit of individual and employer – we can develop and enhance the contribution which the third sector can make to tackling the scourge of youth unemployment.

If you would like to speak to someone about this event, please contact Moira Cuthbertson at moira.cuthbertson@scvo.org.uk or call 0141 559 5034

“It’s time for the UK Government to face up to the reality of long-term unemployment and its impact on so many families. These latest plans are just a drop in the ocean of need. We need a long term approach which enables people of all ages to contribute to their hard-pressed communities at least until the economy recovers.

“A new Community Programme could create 100,000 paid opportunities over the next three years in communities across Scotland allowing the unemployed to earn a wage, improve their employment prospects and provide vital support to community services hungry for resources.”

ENDS

Notes to editors: 1. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is the national body representing the interests of charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises. The Scottish third sector turns over £4.4 billion a year and employs 137,000 people in over 45,000 organisations. For more on SCVO see www.scvo.org.uk

2. Martin Sime, Chief Executive, and John Downie, Director of Public Affairs, SCVO are available for interview and comment

3. For more information contact Charlotte McNeill on 0779 060 1995

The most recent funding updates are only available to SCVO members. The password for this edition of the funding update is in your latest member bulletin. If you have lost your password please email membership@scvo.org.uk and we will email it to you.

The Coalition got a lot of good – if unquestioning – press on Thursday and Friday, when Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced a £1bn plan to provide subsidised work and training placements. He assured us this new scheme will ‘provide hope’ to thousands of young people.

But will it work and really provide real ‘hope’ for young people in Scotland? Not by our calculations.

Taking Scotland as having 10% of the places on the scheme means there would be just 2,650 people on this scheme at any one time in Scotland.

But when we have nearly 100,000 young unemployed in Scotland, how much of a difference will 2,650 subsidised placements make?

Any initiative to tackle youth unemployment is welcome but it seems the Prime Minister doesn’t want any of these jobs to be created in the public sector – only the private sector.

What does this mean for the third sector under public contracts or in receipt of public money?

Despite the Big Society rhetoric, I suspect the Coalition will disappoint us again and the special contribution which voluntary organisations and charities can make to build the confidence and skills of young people will ignored.

The fact is, despite Chris Grayling’s denial, prime contractors in the government’s Work Programme have used voluntary organisations as ‘bid candy’ to win contracts.

And if you want to see how much the prime contractors can potentially make from the Work Programme the DWP Job Outcome payments are in the public domain: the 26 week job outcome fee for Work Programme clients for a client aged 18 – 24 on JSA is £1,200 – nice work if you can get it.

So, with a wage subsidy open to large businesses but not the third sector I could go on about Government using this new fund to subsidise big business while squeezing our sector – particularly in England – but life (and this blog) is too short.

More worryingly, it seems that Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne believe that the key to getting young people into work is skills rather than access to the jobs market. I’m at risk of repeating myself here so see my last blog.

The fact is young people want to work and a real job – what they don’t want is more meaningless schemes and training.

Eddie thought we would supportive of the report, so my off-the-record ‘absolute nonsense’ comment was not the reaction he was expecting.

Was it maybe disappointment or anger that provoked this reaction? No, it was frustration that a group of individuals, many of whom I have upmost respect for, could come up with something so poor.

My more considered reaction was: after all that ‘work’ is this all they can come up with.

Its main recommendation is that a dedicated ministerial portfolio is created to tackle the youth unemployment crisis. I’ve never understood why everyone seems to believe that a Minister is the answer to everything.

Doesn’t the Smith Group believe that John Swinney is absolutely focused on the issue of job creation, especially among young people?

To suggest that appointing a dedicated Minister is necessary in order to deal coherently with this challenge is wrong and undermines the innovative work currently underway in Scotland.

Practical initiatives like Community Jobs Scotland – a third sector consortium which has created 820 jobs in the sector for young unemployed people in just 13 weeks – are making a real difference to the employment prospects of young people across Scotland.

Two other recommendations are also wide of the mark.

Aligning Scottish Government employability policy with local government just doesn’t make sense.

Local authorities can help but they are – quite rightly – locally driven when we need a strategic national approach to jobs.

They are also unlikely to act as a driver of jobs in the private and third sectors.

The reality is we need to align more closely with UK Government policy and ensure that, as John Swinney said at September’s Welfare to Work Convention, Scottish and UK agencies are working closely and effectively together to address this issue.

The third sector in Scotland has long called for the DWP employability programmes to be devolved to the Scottish Government, but for some reason the Smith Group wants them to be given to Skills Development Scotland (SDS).

I accept employability and skills are clearly linked but SDS is patently not in the position to take responsibility for this employability programme. It does not have the track record or experience to deliver employability programmes, as well as delivering on the significant skills challenges facing Scotland.

Disappointingly, the report brings nothing new to the table and the recommendations will do nothing to help reduce youth unemployment.

Thankfully, the Scottish Government is giving the report its ‘full consideration’ – which hopefully, is the usual government speak for thanks but no thanks.

Young people want a job, want to work and want the opportunity to access the labour market – creating real jobs is the answer, not a dedicated minister or yet another report.

SCVO welcomes the opportunity to give evidence to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee on the issue of the Living Wage campaign.

Low pay is an issue which is of keen interest to much of the third sector given the objective for many charities of tackling inequality and poverty.

Addressing low pay by ensuring everyone earns at least enough to be able to pay for basic essentials helps alleviate many of the consequences of living in poverty, with benefits for physical and mental health in particular potentially helping the Government save money on public services in the long-run.

While the legal minimum wage has clearly helped move low pay in the right direction, it is apparent from research funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation1 that the current minimum wage is insufficient to ensure people do not live in income poverty.

A Living Wage – the level of which is calculated by robust analysis of living costs for various household types2 – would help ensure that people earn enough to maintain a minimum standard of living.

Key Points

An aspect of the campaign which has generally not been given as much publicity as the focus on the public sector is that of pay in the third sector itself.

The Living Wage campaign is clear that it sees the third sector as one of its targets. Precise figures on pay in the third sector in Scotland are not available but the general consensus is that there is a significant minority of employees in the sector earning less than £7.20 an hour, with many of those employed in the social care sector – although low pay is by no means unique to this part of the third sector.

There are a number of barriers which help explain why some charities may pay lower than £7.20 an hour. Critically, many of the third sector organisations which are contracted by local government to provide services find the value of the contracts and grants they are awarded is simply too low to pay much more than the minimum wage, regardless of whether or not they would like to pay their staff more.

This has become more of a problem in recent years as public spending cuts have come into effect. In addition, the small size and low turnover of many charities makes implementing a Living Wage more difficult, although the desire to do so may well be there.

For example, the third sector in Scotland includes 45,000 formally constituted voluntary organisations, over 65% of which are grassroots organisations with an income of less than £25,000 a year.

There is also a concern about a potential unintended consequence of the Living Wage campaign being implemented by the public sector, particularly local authorities, in that it could potentially diminish the amount of money available to pay for services contracted to the third sector, thus squeezing the finances of charities even further than they are already and making it harder to afford to deliver services, let alone pay a minimum of £7.20 an hour.

This is a similar issue to that created by the policy of no compulsory redundancies in the public sector, which anecdotal evidence suggests has contributed to funding cuts for third sector organisations with public sector contracts or grants.

We would not wish, however, for this to be taken as an argument against paying a living wage to public sector staff.

Contact: Nick Waugh Policy Officer e:nick.waugh@scvo.org.uk t: 0131 474 8001

1 http://www.minimumincomestandard.org/

2 http://www.minimumincomestandard.org/downloads/working_papers/living_wage_detail_and_rational e.pdf

References

Scottish Voluntary Sector Statistics 2010

• The requirement set out in the standards for a maximum overall continuous period of governing body membership of six years with an exceptional maximum of nine continuous years, is unnecessary. It will have negative impact on the operating capacity of RSL boards and will result in the loss of vital experience and knowledge
• Promoting the payment of governing body members in the guidance runs contrary to the principles of voluntarism which are at the heart of the housing association ethos and are one of the defining features which separate RSLs from the public and private sectors. Encouraging the payment of governing body members in this way could undermine the relationships and trust between board members and the tenants they serve.

Read the full response – Regulation of Social Housing – SCVO response November 2011

Martin Sime, Chief Executive, SCVO comments on the announcement of a £1bn plan to provide subsidised work and training placements to young people aged 18-24 years old by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg:

“Any initiative to tackle youth unemployment is welcome but we have 100,000 young unemployed people in Scotland and there would be just 2,650 young people on this scheme at any one time.

“We are disappointed that the special contribution which voluntary organisations and charities can make to building the confidence and skills of young people has been ignored. We need clarification on what role the third sector will have in this scheme and how it will be funded,” said Martin Sime, Chief Executive, SCVO.

“The Future Jobs Fund was highly successful in our sector and early indications are that Community Jobs Scotland, funded by the Scottish Government, is equally popular and will lead to good outcomes for young people, as well as enabling them to contribute to their communities. In just 12 weeks it has already created over 760 jobs for young unemployed people.”

ENDS Notes to editors:

1. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is the national body representing the interests of charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises. The Scottish third sector turns over £4.4 billion a year and employs 137,000 people in over 45,000 organisations. For more on SCVO see www.scvo.org.uk

2. For more information contact Charlotte McNeill on 0779 060 1995

Find out what happened:

A lot has changed since the last AGM. Although we have all come to expect the unexpected, the outcome of the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections took many of us by surprise. We now have our first majority government, and this has opened up a new political chapter for Scotland and the third sector.

Who knows what might be ahead, as we engage in further speculation about Scotland’s constitutional future?

Looking back over the year, it’s been full of its challenges as usual. Charities and voluntary organisations across Scotland saw their income drop by £96m between 2009 and 2010, and a the State of the Sector survey taken by SCVO last month found that 76% of the participating 275 organisations expect demand for their services to increase in the next 12 months.

While there’s no escaping the clear clash between rising demand and falling resource, I have every confidence in the commitment and the ingenuity of our organisations and people to match the scale of Scotland’s challenges with creative plans and bold ambitions.

Unfortunately SCVO has not been immune from funding cuts and as a result we experienced a painful start to 2011 when we had to lose 23 valued colleagues who had contributed richly to our organisation and to the sector. We miss them.

Without them, we still have to keep on delivering a good service to the sector and to help more people to help themselves and each other. I am deeply grateful to our staff for the loyalty and the generous spirit in which they’ve faced up to these difficult times.

In SCVO we’ve always had a care for the common good in Scotland and ensuring the quality of our public services is an important element in that.

I was immensely glad to have the opportunity to serve on the Christie Commission, whose report began with the observation: The quality of life in Scotland depends in no small measure on the quality of its public services.

Making sure that public funds are used well in supporting everyone in Scotland to make the most of the assets they have, particularly those in greatest need, was at the heart of the Commission’s work.

To do this, we will need a radical shift in our thinking and in the way we set budgets. We need to give a central place to those people and communities who receive the services and we need to make life better for everyone by acting early to prevent the need for an expensive safety net when things go badly wrong.

I’m glad to see that the Commissions’ recommendations are being well received by the Scottish Government and by those who know about public services, in the public and third sectors. But there’s still a long way to go and we need to be vigilant in keeping the policy on track. For Campbell, this was about nothing less than social justice, and that’s not delivered overnight.

We were devastated to hear of his death last month. The tributes to him demonstrated how key his contribution had been to Scottish life and how warmly people had appreciated his real humanity. We must ensure that the legacy of his work is worthy of him.

Challenging times means that we need creative thinking and that’s where the third sector comes into its own. SCVO has achieved many successes in the past year that ought to be celebrated.

During the 2010/11 financial year 1,457 young people took up Future Jobs Fund opportunities. Despite the sad turn of events that saw the Westminster Coalition Government cease funding the programme, we have every reason to celebrate its success for the young people it employed and the third sector organisations that provided placements.

But that’s not all. It should also be celebrated as a shining example of how the third sector can work together and achieve extraordinary results when it does. I’ve no doubt that the 2,000 young people who benefitted from the Future Jobs Fund would testify to its value.

Fortunately, we still have the opportunity in Scotland to tackle youth unemployment. Through the Community Jobs Scotland programme, SCVO is working in partnership with the Scottish Social Enterprise Coalition to deliver 2,000 opportunities for young unemployed people aged 16 – 24 to work within third sector organisations across Scotland. Not only is the programme supporting job sustainability and improving the employment prospects of young people across Scotland, it is also delivering benefit for our communities.

The programme has already created 766 jobs across the country from Stranraer to Shetland, meaning that we’ve already filled a quarter of the target number of jobs. With well over 100 more due to be filled in the next few weeks we are well on track to meet the target.

Demand for CJS has been extremely high – both from employers and prospective employees. In fact our latest figures tell us that the appetite exists for some 4,000 CJS jobs – that is double the number of jobs that can be created under the current funding allocated by the Scottish Government.

Young people recognise that Community Jobs Scotland offers them a valuable opportunity to gain experience, learn new skills and earn a wage. In one of the most arid youth unemployment environments in decades, the programme is offering our young people a much sought after lifeline – that crucial first step on to the career ladder, the chance to earn a living and the opportunity to make their mark on their local communities.

Whether taking up jobs in growth industries such as renewable energy and tourism or competitive fields including design, media and the arts, Community Jobs Scotland is improving the prospects of hundreds of young people across Scotland.

SCVO is well placed to tackle many of the major social challenges facing Scotland. Our membership rose to a record high of 1,371 in March, giving us a stronger voice than ever before and SCVO is intent on leading the drive to do things differently.

This was the main thrust of the third sector manifesto for the Holyrood elections, How to do things differently, which gained cross-party support in the run-up to the elections. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who got involved in the campaign by sharing details of the work they do, the difficulties that lie in their way, and their ‘asks’ for the future.

As well as our manifesto, we ran a series of policy forums with the main parties, which gave our members the chance to make an impact on the politicians, with stories and ideas gleaned from their crucial experience at the critical time when the parties were preparing their campaigns.

Now the onus is on the new government to deliver on its progressive manifesto pledges and to ensure that the third sector is supported to play its full part.

With the backing of our membership, SCVO will make the most of this rare opportunity to instigate lasting change.

Already we are seeing positive signs that the new Government’s support for the third sector goes beyond rhetoric.

John Swinney’s Spending Review marked a major shift in focus to prevention and highlighted the Scottish Government’s confidence in the third sector’s ability to play a bigger part in revolutionising public services in Scotland.

Our sector has been making the case for investing early to prevent bigger problems further down the line for many years, whether that’s in climate change, reoffending or health. We have the experience and expertise in delivering prevention programmes that can bring about better outcomes for the people of Scotland and free up much needed savings for the public purse in the process.

SCVO welcomed the news that the Scottish Government has prioritised investment in prevention programmes in the fields of adult social care, early years and tackling re-offending. Of course, as well as sufficient investment from the Scottish Government this calls for buy-in from local authorities and NHS boards and a substantial contribution from the third sector.

We are ready to do our bit and even to go the extra mile. There is a proper role for the voluntary sector here, though we will resist the idea that volunteers can simply pick up the slack when funding dries up.

It costs money to support, train and recruit volunteers and we are also committed to maintain the high quality of services that our members deliver.

2010/11 also saw the redevelopment of Brunswick House in Glasgow to create a charity hub. I was delighted to attend the official opening of this fantastic new facility. With the hub already playing host to Citizens’ Advice Direct and Nil by Mouth, I’m excited about the potential value it will create by giving third sector groups opportunities to work alongside organisations with similar ambitions to network and share ideas on how they can make a positive difference to people’s lives across Scotland.

The past year has also paved the way for the launch of SCVO’s new-look website, followed shortly after by a new TFN website and a redesign of the newspaper and e-bulletin TFN. These tools are helping us to become even better at sharing information on the third sector. They are helping us to connect thousands of third sector organisations to the essential support that SCVO provides, and ensuring that our latest ideas and research reach policy makers, politicians and the media.

At this AGM, we say Goodbye to Helen Tyrrell, who has been a great support to me as Vice-Convener over the last four years. She has held my hand and lent me her ear through tricky times and has always been ready to share her wisdom from a distinguished career at Voluntary Health Scotland with me and with other members of the Board.

There are going to be several changes to the Board membership today, so may I also thank Penny, Lindsay and Kirsten for their support and inspiration as valued Board members.

From the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to the Chief Medical Officer, there is recognition that voluntary organisations are well placed to unlock the assets of our communities and at helping people to help themselves.

The third sector plays an extensive and ever growing role in care, often reducing demand for more expensive institutional services. It is at the leading edge of the green economy through initiatives giving energy advice and supporting the development of community-owned renewables.

We are also seeing a growing record of successful land buy-outs and community-based asset development.

So there are good reasons to be optimistic about what we can achieve even in the difficult climate we find ourselves in.

A long time ago, John Stuart Mill said that, without the habit of spontaneous voluntary action, citizens have their faculties only half developed.

We need to have people firing on all cylinders just now, so let’s keep up the good work and leverage every single untapped resource that could be developed for the benefit of our people. They are our greatest asset after all.

I hope you find the rest of the evening interesting and I look forward to working with you over the year ahead.

Thank you.

The most recent funding updates are only available to SCVO members. The password for this edition of the funding update is in your latest member bulletin. If you have lost your password please email membership@scvo.org.uk and we will email it to you.

18 November

For immediate release

Charities experiencing staff cuts and rising demand for services are worried about the future of their organisations, SCVO’s State of the Sector survey has revealed.

More than three quarters (76%) of third sector organisations expect demand for their services to increase in the next 12 months but nearly one fifth (19%) expect staff numbers to reduce over the same period.

“A clear clash is emerging between growing demand for services and a reduction in staff numbers, opening a gap which third sector organisations won’t be able to fill,” said Martin Sime, Chief Executive, SCVO.

“But SCVO is offering a solution. Community Jobs Scotland will deliver 2,000 paid jobs to young unemployed people in third sector organisations across Scotland, boosting their employment prospects and helping over stretched staff to meet growing demand. So far 700 jobs have been created.

“39% of respondents plan to recruit more volunteers over the next year but recruiting, training and managing volunteers takes time and resources. There isn’t an endless supply of people wanting to give their time for free and, even if there was, they are not a substitute for paid staff.

“With the number of people in Scotland claiming Job Seekers Allowance up by 8,300 compared to this time last year, staff cuts will not only impact on the third sector’s ability to deliver cost-effective services to the most vulnerable in society, it will also have a knock-on impact on the wider Scottish economy.

“The third sector is great at preventing social problems but with 80% of organisations expecting the sector’s financial situation to get worse, we urgently need to see all rhetoric for a greater third sector role in the delivery of public services matched with greater investment to give young people an opportunity to work in the sector.”

Key findings:

76% of organisations expect demand for their services to increase in the next 12 months

19% expect staff numbers to decrease

31% of organisations (with turnover over £1m) expect staff numbers to decrease

39% expect to recruit more volunteers in the next 12 months

47% of organisations are unsure or concerned about the overall future of their organisation

80% of organisations expect the economic situation in the sector to worsen in the next 12 months

Notes to editors:

1. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is the national body representing the interests of charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises. The Scottish third sector turns over £4.4 billion a year and employs 137,000 people in over 45,000 organisations.

2. There were 275 respondents to the survey. A more detailed summary of survey findings is available HERE

3. Community Jobs Scotland (CJS) seeks to deliver 2,000 paid jobs to young unemployed people through a network of nearly 500 third sector organisations in each of Scotland’s 32 local authority areas. More details are available HERE

4. Martin Sime, Chief Executive, and John Downie, Director of Public Affairs, SCVO are available for interview and comment

5. For more information contact Charlotte McNeill at SCVO on 07790 601 995

For immediate release

Laura Lee, CEO of Maggie’s Cancer Caring Centres, will be the guest speaker at SCVO’s 68th AGM on Wednesday 23 November at the Scottish Youth Theatre, Glasgow.

Laura will share her journey from working as a nurse to becoming the CEO of the fastest growing cancer charity in the UK all thanks to a former patient Maggie Keswick Jencks.

“I am honoured to have been asked to speak at SCVO’s AGM. I will give an overview of Maggie’s journey from one centre in Edinburgh, which was all we had initially envisioned, to 15 centres either open or in development in this our 15th year,” said Laura Lee.

“I will explain how the initial concept was devised – everything from getting the right people on board to champion our cause to going through a brand refresh. I will also touch on my own personal career development which has allowed me to make sure Maggie Keswick Jencks’ vision has been maintained, whilst growing the charity to a new level that none of us had initially ever imagined possible.

“I hope people will take some inspiration from Maggie’s story and I look forward to meeting other charity representatives on the night.”

It is anticipated that Stephen Osborne, Professor of International Public Management at The University of Edinburgh Business School, will also be named Vice-Convener of SCVO at the event.

“I’m delighted to be able to make a contribution both to Scotland’s vibrant and important third sector and to be the outstanding team at SCVO,” said Stephen.

“For over 20 years I have been researching with, for, and about the sector – in Scotland, the UK and globally. I look forward to using this experience to help the sector through the current recession and to make a sustained contribution to the quality of life in Scotland.”

Stephen will replace Helen Tyrrell, the recently retired Chief Executive of Voluntary Health Scotland, who is stepping down.

Notes to editors:

1. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is the national body representing the interests of charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises.  The Scottish third sector turns over £4.4 billion a year and employs 137,000 people in over 45,000 organisations.  For more on SCVO see www.scvo.org.uk
   
2. The SCVO AGM and free seminars will take place at the Scottish Youth Theatre, Old Sheriff Court, 105 Brunswick Street, Glasgow on 23 November from 2.30pm.
3. For more information contact Charlotte McNeill at SCVO on 0779 060 1995

Please note that booking is now closed for our AGM.

You can download:

• Invitation letter
• Agenda for AGM 2011
• Minutes of AGM 2010
• Proxy voting form

We’re offering the opportunity for you to access free information seminars during the afternoon of the AGM. Topics include:

• Ask an Expert: Legal Issues for the Third Sector in Scotland
• Opportunities for recovering VAT
• A Conversation with OSCR: SCIOs – the story so far
• Making Freedom of Information work for you
• Fundraising Hints and Tips

Download the full SCVO AGM programme (PDF).

SCVO is excited to announce that this year’s Scottish Charity Awards Charity Champion, Laura Lee of Maggie’s Cancer Caring Centres will be our guest speaker after the AGM.

You do not need to be a member to join us at our AGM but non-members will not be able to vote.

Read the full briefing (PDF).

Key points to note from this briefing are:

• UK Welfare reform will have a massive impact on Scottish budgets going forward, the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government need to ensure they fully engage the third sector in assessing the impact of the reforms on devolved services.
• SCVO would argue that it should be possible for the regulations, which will be part of secondary legislation, to be adapted to take into account the Scottish circumstances.
• How can we instead, move to a vision of welfare reform that works for Scotland, to ask the questions: ‘what kind of welfare in Scotland do we want to see?’, ‘how do we get there?’ and ‘which powers would we need?’

Read the briefing in full (PDF).

The most recent funding updates are only available to SCVO members. The password for this edition of the funding update is in your latest member bulletin. If you have lost your password please email membership@scvo.org.uk and we will email it to you.

As you may be aware, the Change Fund is a key means by which the Scottish Government intends to take forward the preventative agenda, but there are a number of issues around the extent to which the third sector has been included as an equal partner in the planning process and concerns have been raised that too little of the Fund is being allocated to prevention.

For more information on the Change Fund, read our recent briefing.

We’d like to secure a members debate in Parliament on the issue and it would be hugely helpful if anyone with a viewpoint on how the Change Fund has been working (or not working) for the third sector gets in touch with MSPs from across the parties to encourage them to sign the motion. The more support it has, and the more cross party support it has, the more likely it is to be selected for debate.

The text of the motion is below and can also be found on the Scottish Parliament website.

“That the Parliament welcomes the three-year continuation of the Reshaping Care Change Fund announced in the Scottish Government’s draft budget; believes that it has the potential to catalyse the shift to preventative public services and recognises the key contribution that the third sector will make to the agenda, and considers that, for the fund to meet its objectives, the third sector must be treated as an equal partner in all local change partnerships and that spending on prevention and early intervention must be given the highest priority.”

If you would like to discuss the Change Fund with SCVO, please email Nick Waugh, policy officer.

Professor Stephen Osborne

At next week’s AGM SCVO members will be asked to endorse the appointment of a new Vice-Convener, welcome new members to Policy Committee and elect new members to the Management Board.

Last week Professor Stephen Osborne accepted our invitation to be proposed as Vice-Convener at the AGM on Wednesday 23 November.

Professor Osborne holds the chair of International Public Management in Edinburgh University. He is a qualified social worker and has experience of working with voluntary organisations. More significantly, his research area is the third sector and he is particularly interested in risk analysis. You can read more about him in his University profile.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank Helen Tyrrell, our departing Vice-Convener, for her commitment and service to SCVO. Helen served as Vice-Convener for four years and as a member of our Management Board for six years. Helen retired as director of Voluntary Health Scotland in August and we wish her all the best in her well-earned retirement.

SCVO is also looking forward to welcoming the ten successful candidates for Policy Committee:

Read more about them.

Thanks and appreciation are due to Penny Brodie (Lead Scotland), Lindsay Hall (Longhope Lifeboat Museum Trust) and Kirsten Hogg (Camphill Scotland), who will stand down from SCVO’s Management Board at the AGM. Richard Hamer (Capability Scotland), Carole Patrick (CVS Fife) and Keith Legge (SYHA Hostelling Scotland) are standing for the three board places which are available.

Meanwhile, Florence Edmond (Action on Hearing Loss Scotland), Lindsay Hall (Longhope Lifeboat Museum Trust) and Nancy Taylor will stand down from Policy Committee at the AGM.

SCVO would like to thank Florence, Lindsay, Nancy for their valuable contributions to Policy Committee over the years.

As the baby boomers reach retirement we will have to pay more, do more and expect less.

A new report, A life worth living, published today by SCVO calls for urgent reform of how we care for older people in Scotland.

Martin Sime, Chief Executive, SCVO, said:

“An ageing population and the associated unsustainable costs for Scotland’s public services mean we will have to pay more and expect less from the government, and do more for ourselves and each other.

“Our politicians can’t solve this by themselves. It involves us all – young and old, frail and healthy – because we’ll all get old some day and the consequences could be dramatic if we don’t take more responsibility for our own and each other’s health and care.

“The latest figures from the National Records of Scotland show that between 2010 and 2035 the number of people aged over 75 will increase by 82%. We’re living longer than ever before and we need to take action now to make sure that these extra years are worth living.

“The International Monetary Fund says that until 2050 when the baby boomer effect subsides, the costs of an ageing population will dwarf those of the financial crisis.

“As well as being unsustainable, the current system does not meet our needs for a more personal system of care that supports people to make their own choices and puts older people at the centre.

“The third sector must be supported to play a central role in rethinking how we care for our older people.”

Key recommendations:

• Service providers must consult and engage with Scotland’s people to design cost-effective personalised services

• Engineer out costly overlaps in service

• Improve our measures of well-being in older age so that we can better track the quality and impact of social and health care provision

• Focus on people’s capabilities and shift formal professional care provision towards those with the highest support needs

• Support third sector organisations to be more effective participants in the creation of innovative services for our ageing population

• Ensure commissioning and tendering rules are more third sector friendly

• Government must support and nurture self help and the community capacity building work of the third sector so that older people themselves can contribute much more to the debate about future patterns of care

Report

Report summary as PDF.

Full report as PDF.

ENDS

Notes to editors:

1. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is the national body representing the interests of charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises.  The Scottish third sector turns over £4.4 billion a year and employs 137,000 people in over 45,000 organisations.  For more on SCVO see www.scvo.org.uk
2. A life worth living was commissioned by SCVO with part funding from the Carnegie UK Trust and written by Alan Sinclair, economist and fellow of the Centre for Confidence and Well-being
3. Summary and the full report attached
4. Chapter 5 of the report (p25-35) contains case studies of services which meet the needs of older people in Quebec, the Netherlands, Nairn, North Lanarkshire and the Scottish Borders
5. For the full National Records of Scotland Projected Population of Scotland report, visit http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/population-projections/2010-based/j20140000.htm
6. For more information contact John Downie at SCVO on 07530 542 263 or Alan Sinclair on 07737 970 456

The most recent funding updates are only available to SCVO members. The password for this edition of the funding update is in your latest member bulletin. If you have lost your password please email membership@scvo.org.uk and we will email it to you.

Recent research from SCVO shows that Scottish third sector organisations are being squeezed – income is going down and demand for services is going up. However, there are things you can do to help your organisation survive the recession. Making sure your staff team is happy and valued is something that can show real returns. Attracting and retaining good staff has never been more important and creating the right workplace culture is key.

At SCVO we’re encouraging our members to take part in the Scotland’s Best Workplaces Programme. To help our members get involved we have negotiated 7 free places* on the programme and a 15% discount for anyone who misses out on the free deal.

Working in the third sector, many of us do the work we do because we want to make a difference – not because of the pay. So how can we show our staff that we value the work they do?

Beyond pay and perks there are a number of key measures that can help you create the kind of workplace where employees feel more motivated and committed to deliver. And that means lower staff costs and increased productivity and a better chance of weathering tough markets.

Taking part in Scotland’s Best Workplaces Programme will help you understand what makes a workplace great, how it impacts on business performance and how you can create your own great workplace. And, if your workplace is already great, you could be recognised as one of Scotland’s Best Workplaces.

Organisations from all over Scotland have already registered to take part. Register today and start your journey to creating a great workplace.

‘As a charity that supports people to lead their lives and to do the things they want to do we value people as individuals and that includes our staff. The Best Workplaces Programme gave us further validation that our philosophy, values and practices are indeed the foundation of our achievements – values and practices that are recognised by the Programme as being key to creating a ‘great workplace’ and a successful business. As well as success in the Scottish Best Workplaces Programme, we were delighted to be recognised as a Best Workplace in the UK. We were pleased at the level of support we got and, based on our experience and results, would certainly take part again.’

Jean Mowle, Operations Manager Human Resources, Carr-Gomm Scotland

For more information and details of how to take part, visit the Scotland’s Best Workplaces Programme website.

Or phone 0870 608 8780

*  Terms and condition apply. First 7 applications only.

Scotland’s third sector organisations met at the Scottish Parliament on November 1^st to inform MSPs from the Health and Sport Committee on the upcoming Welfare Reform Bill scrutiny.

Over 50 organisations from across the sector attended the event, co-hosted by SCVO, Citizens Advice Scotland and Children in Scotland. With only two weeks to go to the first evidence session to be held by the Health and Sport Committee the event gained cross-party support, with MSPs from all parties keen to find out what the sector had to say.

Delegates raised a number of concerns about welfare and benefit changes which will directly impact upon some of Scotland’s most vulnerable people, as well as the organisations that support them. In the current climate of squeezed budgets and increased costs many in the sector feel now is not the time to hit Scotland’s households with decreasing incomes, ultimately forcing more people to make tougher choices and slip further into poverty.

There was also consensus that the Scottish Government’s recently announced priority for preventative spending could be jeopardised because the Government will have to choose between plugging budget gaps created by UK welfare reform or passing on the cuts.

MSPs who attended the event left with first hand experience of how wide ranging these cuts will be, not only to individuals but to the whole of Scottish society.

Bob Doris MSP, deputy-convenor of the Health and Sport Committee said after the event:

“Tonight’s event was a great opportunity for MSPs to meet many individuals on the front-line, and we heard real life examples of the damage that UK welfare reforms will bring to Scotland. The event will inform our thinking going forward, and it is clear that the consequences of UK reforms will resonate far and wide. As groups pointed out, it is not possible to take £2billion out of the Scottish economy and £1b benefit payments from our most vulnerable and not expect severe consequences.

“The Scottish Government’s devolved policy agenda has been developed in partnership with the third sector and UK reforms threaten this. It has been suggested that the Scottish Parliament scrutinise the impact of welfare reforms on an on-going basis and I am sure this is something that the Health and Sport committee will give consideration to.”

Drew Smith MSP added:

“The number of organisations represented at the event was an indication of the level of interest but also the level of concern about the UK Government’s welfare reform proposals and the Scottish Government’s lack of preparedness for the impact these changes and cuts will have on many vulnerable people and service providers in Scotland.

“I would encourage as many people as possible to submit their evidence to the Scottish Parliament on what this will mean for them.”

The Scottish Parliament’s Health and Sport Committee will hear evidence on the Welfare Reform Bill on November 15^th and 22^nd.

Sponsoring MSPs – Bob Doris (SNP), Drew Smith (LAB), Mary Scanlon (CON), Alison McInnes (LD), Allison Johnstone (Green) and Margo MacDonald (Ind)

• To facilitate interaction with the Scottish Parliament from third sector staff and volunteers the current sociable operating hours and alignment of recess dates with school holidays should be retained
• Procedures that formalise a process for allowing third sector organisations to introduce topics for debate in the chamber and committees should be investigated
• To better understand the effectiveness of existing legislation, more time for post legislative scrutiny is required in parliament committees
• More time could be devoted by committees for discussion and scrutiny of reserved matters that will have a significant impact on Scotland
• The ban on the use of social media in the chamber and committees should be lifted

Read the full response as a PDF.

This post was originally written by Ruchir Shah, SCVO policy manager, ahead of the GovCamp Scotland event on November 11 2011.

Sometimes we also think of campaign groups and popular e-petitions, such as the petition to Westminster on a referendum to leave the EU, or the Scottish campaigns against waste incineration, against bank investments in fossil fuels, and even the Facebook campaign to boycott a Scottish Shopping Centre on its photography policy. The Scottish Parliament will shortly launch its own “e-petitioner” facility and even Brussels is now onto this game, with a new facility for citizens to petition a debate within the European Parliament if they achieve one million signatories.

But there is a growing realisation that civil society is engaging with digital tech on a more political level. During the multi-coloured revolutions in the former Eastern Bloc countries in the late 90s, citizens used mobile phones and text messages for mass organisation. Obama and more recently the SNP, made extensive use of social media to build their election support base. More recently, we have seen the pivotal role of social networking websites, Twitter and Facebook, in the Arab spring uprisings and the use of web-enabled camera phones that blur the lines between citizen action and journalism.

I would argue that there is another strand opening up here, one which is not about political action, campaigning or mass-communication. One that is simply about community building. Less visible but far more pervasive are the initiatives that connect together people in ways you would least expect. The OpenSource movement has been at the forefront of this for many years. Here is one striking example. A non-profit trust called the Blender Institute, which developed open source animation software, recently launched its third “open source” animated movie to award winning acclaim. The open source model means all digital and coding output is made freely available allowing the focus to be on building community participation. “Sintel” was produced on a relatively shoe-string budget and a tight deadline. During production the animation team, realising that they were struggling, put out a call to its fan base requesting help. 100s of community members from dozens of countries contributed their time, creative artwork, comments and contributions which subsequently shaped the film. Sintel became a community film in its widest sense. Most of these people had never met each other.

So what’s in it for civil society with a Scottish digital future? Arguably Scotland’s rural population, due to sheer necessity, has already spurred some unique opportunities here. The Rural Gateway web network for example links together active citizens across some of the most remote areas of Scotland – people who would never otherwise know each other.  So a digital future probably works best when it allows people to connect across geographical boundaries. Beyond the basic digital infrastructure to allow people to participate in a digital future, community building implies a transfer of power not to the individual citizen but to the citizen as a collective, and beyond their immediate locality – this is digital civil society in action.

That was an important reminder to me, as someone who tends to observe politics, rather than getting stuck into the fray, that politics is about our passions. It’s driven by hope and a sense of justice and, yes, by fear. Our MPs and MSPs need to be able to identify with and to understand the things their constituents care most deeply about.

But the privilege of politics is the opportunity to make changes that actually move our society further along the road toward the goals that inspire us. And to do that well, we need a mature debate that can look at policy options clearly and, to an extent, dispassionately. Winning the argument is important but the way in which it’s won also matters. We do our cause a disservice if we silence dissent, either by enforcing a rigid line with our own supporters or by undermining the credibility, rather than the arguments, of our opponents.

In recent days, we’ve been given an insight into how immature Scottish politics can be. Iain Gray has spoken of how his successor can expect to be smeared, while Eilidh Whiteford has reported that she was explicitly threatened by the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster. What’s been most disturbing to me has been the way that people have been unsurprised by these allegations. Bullying and personal attack are seen too readily as part of the currency of Scottish politics.

We need to get a grip on this. We all know how violence and tribalism disfigure Scottish society. What hope is there that any political initiatives will impact on that sorry picture if our politicians allow their cause to be advanced by these same methods? Eilidh was accused of equating her experience in a House of Commons Committee with that of someone suffering from domestic abuse. It’s not the same, but nor is the comparison invalid. Our politicians have a responsibility to ensure that their behaviour sets an example for the rest of society. I know that there are many admirable men and women in Scottish politics. They must raise the game for the sake of the causes they believe in.

Download the State of the Sector summary as a PDF.

SCVO has also updated its Scottish Third Sector Key Statistics which are based on SCVO and OSCR data for 2009-10. The figures show that the economic crisis is beginning to affect charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises. Rising inflation, teamed with static income means that the sector has to do more with less, and in some cases organisations are dipping into reserves to fund crucial projects.

Download the Scottish Third Sector Key Statistics as a PDF.

New figures from SCVO’s State of the Sector survey released today reveal that growing demand for services forced more than a third of Scottish charities to use their life-line reserves to keep services open.

Charities saw a £96m drop in income in 2010 and with three quarters of third sector organisations expecting demand for their services to continue to grow over the next year, Martin Sime, Chief Executive, SCVO, is calling on the Scottish Government and public sector funders to commit to longer term funding agreements to bring more stability to the sector.

“Confidence in the third sector is low despite the fact that politically the third sector is becoming more prominent and its role in public services is being promoted,” he said.

“The sector can’t perform without a degree of stability so in this difficult climate the case for three to five year funding agreements is even stronger.

“Voluntary organisations need a new and better deal from the public sector which delivers on the high level of rhetorical support. Local government in particular needs to start doing things differently.”

Key findings

90% of organisations expect the economic situation for their organisation to worsen or stay the same in the next 12 months

80% of organisations expect the economic situation in the sector to worsen in the next 12 months

86% of respondents are planning to develop new income sources

76% of organisations expect demand for their services to increase in the next 12 months

40% of organisations had higher expenditure in 2010 than income – they were forced to use reserves to make up the difference

70% of organisations expect their organisation to stay the same in size or reduce

25% of organisations have reduced in size

47% of organisations are unsure or concerned about the overall future of their organisation

Key trends

• Despite the Scottish Government expressing support for the growth of the third sector and its role in preventative public services, most charities believe that their organisations will fail to grow or reduce in size over the next 12 months.

• Charities are pessimistic about the fate of the whole sector. Even if the country manages to stay out of recession, 80% believe the financial situation for the third sector will get worse in the next 12 months.

• Three quarters of charity chief executives are not planning to offer pay rises to staff this year, while 9% are predicting that staff pay will fall.

Martin Sime, SCVO

Martin Sime, Chief Executive, SCVO shared his views on the big society at a major conference in Edinburgh today (28 Ocotber)

BIG SOCIETY: A Toxic Brand?

Someone has very politely put a question mark in front of the title to my comments. Let me be clear that I don’t think it should be there.

There is, I know, a Big Society industry down south. There are conferences aplenty, Ministerial and PM statements by the dozen, training courses in how to do it, and a plethora of pundits and commentators working around the idea.

We’ve largely escaped from that in Scotland and I want to reflect on why that is the case.

But I have, over the last year or so, fielded several invitations to talk about what the Big Society might mean and whether it is a useful concept. On such occasions you get a sense from the audience – whether it’s a fringe meeting at the Lib Dem conference or the tenant committee members of housing associations – about what they make of it all. I’ve not found anyone with a good word to say.

People here seem to look on the UK Government in the round and associate the Big Society with its broader policies. For example with a punitive approach to unemployment, welfare cuts which attack poor people, cynical campaigns against asylum seekers and immigrants, and the rest.

What is insufficiently appreciated is the increasing divergence in social policy on issues like these, north and south of the border. Largely we don’t use the politics of blame to drive our policy. We’re not quite so wedded to markets as the answer to everything either.

Most commentators expect that divergence to grow over the coming years. The consequence is that the Big Society doesn’t really fit our understanding of the narrative in Scotland – it’s just a Tory con trick and a cover for cuts. That’s to say nothing about what’s been happening to the third sector in England.

The dismantling of the strategic relationships that had been built up over twenty years. The cavalier cuts to the Office for Civil Society core funding, for example the halving of support to Volunteering England, the end of support to Timebank UK and the like. To the third sector in Scotland none of that sounds very promising.

But nor does it chime with the politics north of the border. Built around a more accessible parliament and government, the third sector enjoys a privileged and influential position in public policy. There is a high level of rhetorical support across the political spectrum.

Whilst not immune, voluntary organisations have had some protection from the worst of the public sector cutbacks, at least in part because the third sector is seen to have some of the answers to the need for public service reform and to be the anchor of community regeneration and much else besides. Why risk all of that for something no one understands but seems to come at a heavy price? David Mundell has a hard job on his hands.

But I think there’s a wider problem here that applies across the UK and internationally. Governments can’t create big societies – although the Chinese Government had a slogan in the ‘90’s called “small state, big society” even they struggled to put it into practice. A new report by NCVO, built on in depth interviews with the public, rather confirmed my view that the imposition of government agendas on peoples existing activities was “almost unanimously rejected” and that government’s involvement in encouraging volunteering has had “damaging effects”.

In other words it puts people off – that’s what makes the Big Society toxic.

If that’s about brand and presentation, what about the underlying concept? I think it’s relatively easy to understand that as a country and society and as individuals there is great intrinsic value in us doing more for ourselves and each other.

We have reached a point where, because of a mixture of demography, limits on public expenditure, and a growing understanding of the value of self help and mutual aid, independent community action and active citizenship, personal and community action simply have to have a higher profile and status in the future. The Christie Commission report captures that imperative almost exactly.

For me that raises the much more interesting question of whether or how the state can help self help. Let’s be clear that the very last thing we need is the First Minister making vacuous speeches about the need to do this or about our responsibilities needing to balance out our rights.

We don’t need a lot of ‘Make A Difference’ days, or competitively tendered government contracts to deliver services. None of that really helps self help – some of it, such as the approach of local government to commissioning care – actually diminishes it.

What we do need is government to nurture self help – to support the things that work, that people are already doing that make a difference.

It’s not rocket science – in fact there are many examples out there already – the Long Term Conditions Alliance Scotland self management fund, the work of the hospice movement and carers organisations or the growing number of Development Trusts.

We’ve also got a vibrant third sector – at least three new charities formed every working day in Scotland, a strong housing association movement, credit unions and much else besides. What these things have in common is that, at heart, they exist because people want to do them – they were born out of acts of citizenship.

Government can’t buy them – you can’t commission self help – and largely can’t, and shouldn’t try to – control them. But government can and ought to value them more than they currently do, government can and ought to support and nurture them to do more but in a quiet, empowering and enabling way.

We might even need to think about a return to grant funding as the means to this end. More of the same is neither feasible nor desirable – there is no alternative.

There is one other dimension to all of this that deserves a mention. A new paradigm is emerging in health and care which has a wider applicability in the public service domain. It is built around what has been labelled as “an assets-based approach” and has been championed by Harry Burns, the Chief Medical Officer. Instead of people being assessed for services as a result of a disability or problem, such assessments are built on people’s abilities and assets.

In Quebec, older people are assessed for independence rather than dependence – what is needed to support them to live their lives as they want. The key is to build on what people have. It is argued that this kind of approach is the only way to effectively tackle issues such as obesity because it is about building confidence, self esteem and personal control – the antithesis of the state doing things to and for people.

This isn’t the place to argue the merits of such asset-based thinking, but, alongside self- directed support and personalisation, it offers a way forward for health and care which is citizen centred, enabling and sustainable. In a fully matured system based around these principles, one could imagine professional services being the last rather than first resort. Almost by default there would be a smaller state and a bigger society. But we are not there yet.

Today we are being encouraged to look at the Big Society and consider whether it has any value for us – I think almost certainly not. But we do need a bigger society (let’s call it something else) and we do need to have a conversation about how to get us there. A conversation about how we can make supporting people to help themselves and each other a purpose of government at the very highest level.

In particular, the continuation of the reshaping care Change Fund, and the announcement of two new Funds, in the Scottish Government’s draft budget represent a welcome contribution in the transition to preventative public services.

However, as Alex Neil MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, recently said, there is a need to learn from the experience of the pilot Change Fund and “see how it can be done better so that before we go into other areas and set up mechanisms, we’ll learn the lessons.”

SCVO’s briefing on the Change Fund draws on the experience of the third sector thus far, which highlights some of the challenges that need to be overcome to ensure the success of the Change Fund over the next three years.

Our primary concerns are around distribution of funds towards projects which constitute neither prevention nor early intervention and the difficulty the third sector has at times found in being treated as an equal partner in the Change Partnerships.

Our report identifies the root cause of those problems and proposes solutions that would help the Scottish Government meet its objectives and make the most of the Change Fund’s potential.

Download the briefing on the Change Fund as a PDF.

Sent on 20 October to:

In addition, the Scottish Government needs to say more about how it will drive forwards the prevention agenda in practice across all of its spending and activities.

Read the full response as a PDF.

Download the full response as a PDF.

Third sector seminar to inform the Scottish Parliament

Please note: this event is now full. If you have any questions about the event, please email pon@scvo.org.uk

Welfare reform is a very hot topic for both the Scottish third sector and parliamentarians.  Our sector is perfectly placed to advise on how changes proposed by Westminster’s Welfare Reform Bill might impact individuals and communities in Scotland.

SCVO, Citizens Advice Scotland and Children in Scotland are working with a range of leading third sector organisations with support from MSPs from across the parties to host an evening seminar on wefare reform.

The Scottish Parliament will shortly consider a Legislative Consent Motion on the Welfare Reform Bill currently passing through the Westminster Parliament.

Some organisations have already been invited to present evidence directly to the committees. However, given the scale of interest in welfare reform it is evident that there needs to be a wider platform for our sector to feed in to the debate.

This event will provide an extensive range of perspectives from the third sector on what measures the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government need to consider to mitigate the impact of the Welfare Reform Bill. We want to ensure an emphasis on solutions, while noting that the full impact will not be clear at this stage.

View the draft agenda.

More event information

• SCVO is facilitating this event in partnership Citizens Advice Scotland, Children in Scotland and other leading third sector organisations. The event is supported by members of the Scottish Campaign on Welfare Reform (SCOWR) and other key organisations from the housing, disability and children’s sectors.
• The event is being organised with the Clerk of the Health and Sports Committee, which is the lead committee scrutinising the welfare reform proposals in the Scottish Parliament.
• We have sought cross-party support for this discussion. Bob Doris (SNP), Drew Smith (Scottish Labour), Mary Scanlon (Scottish Conservatives and Unionists), Alison McInnes (Scottish Liberal Democrats), Alison Johnstone (Scottish Greens), Margo MacDonald (Independent) have all confirmed attendance.
• The focus for this event however is not on meeting or hearing from MSPs, but on informing their deliberations and offering them solutions on what needs to be done.

The most recent funding updates are only available to SCVO members. The password for this edition of the funding update is in your latest member bulletin. If you have lost your password please email membership@scvo.org.uk and we will email it to you.

Martin Sime, SCVO

Constitutional change is firmly on the agenda for Scotland and the majority of people will welcome it.

Opinion polls consistently indicate that people want to see more powers devolved to Scotland but my concern is that at present this change could come under the auspices of the Scotland Bill.

Even before it has had the chance to be fully implemented, the Scotland Bill has already been rendered irrelevant by the SNP’s comprehensive victory in the 2011 Scottish Election and the guarantee of a referendum on independence that accompanied it.

In any case, debating which powers should or should not be devolved is the wrong approach. We should start by considering what kind of Scotland we want to see, what kind of change we want to happen and how we are going to use our powers. Only then should we move on to think about the powers we would need to make that vision a reality.

We need to completely rethink how we develop devolution.

If we are to build on the Scotland Bill, we must frame the debate differently.

The wider social and economic issues that will directly impact Scotland’s people and communities – health and care, benefits and employability – must be taken into account.

What would an independent Scotland do with its powers over benefits? How would control over Job Centre Plus change the nature of support for unemployed people? How would welfare reform affect the ability of the disabled to live independently?

This is a debate about the future of Scotland that is too important to be left to the politicians. It belongs to the people and communities of Scotland.

Civil society has an important role to play in this by building public understanding and involvement, by being a key link between people and government and by developing consensus beyond the political domain.

It has to be about people not powers and third sector organisations have the capacity to reach people and communities on a scale which the political parties lack.

The sector must maximise this advantage in the run up to the forthcoming referendum by sharing its expertise, and facilitating discussion and debate. I gave evidence to the Scotland Bill Committee this week on the UK Government’s proposed welfare and benefits reform, calling for a debate about the specific elements of constitutional change and what they would mean for the people the third sector advocates for and supports.

“Kill the Bill” was my plea to the Committee – it’s the only logical way forward.

The SNP and Labour’s subsequent refusal to give Legislative Consent on welfare reform to the UK Government is a welcome step in the right direction.

Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, has called for further scrutiny of the finer details of welfare reform and what it would mean for the people of Scotland – a clear indication that the concerns of the third sector about the impact of the reforms on the most vulnerable in our communities are being heard.

Now it’s critical that the Scottish Parliament as a whole conducts urgent and intense scrutiny of welfare reform over the coming months and fully engages the third sector in it.

A meaningful discussion about the future of Scotland is long overdue – a debate that doesn’t obsess over which powers should or should not be devolved but focuses on how any new powers would affect people and communities.

The third sector must be at the heart of this debate to ensure that Scotland’s people have a say in shaping their future.

This article first appeared in Caledonian Mercury on 7 October 2011

Third sector must drive prevention

The focus of the Scottish Government’s Spending Review and the strategic shift to prevention and the allocation of £500m over the next three years to preventative programmes is a real statement of intent that the Government wants to prevent social problems rather than treating them very expensively later on.

This move in the areas of adult social care, early years and tackling reoffending plays to the strengths of the Third Sector which is best placed to deliver prevention programmes.

The fact that political consensus has been reached that prevention is the best way forward means the challenge for the Government now is to ensure that the money set aside for prevention gets to the right people at the right time rather than simply being redirected to fund existing ways of doing things.

The Government must take decisive action or prevention will not be delivered to help choke off demand for expensive public services. The obvious way to ensure successful delivery of prevention programmes is to secure a commitment from NHS boards and local authorities that they will invest in prevention programmes and the Third Sector – but experience tells us that this doesn’t work.

Only 18% of the £70m Change Fund for Care of Older People was spent on prevention. If the new change funds are to act as catalysts for the prevention agenda, the Government must step in and make sure that local authorities and NHS boards overcome their reluctance to invest upfront in preventative services and the Third Sector.

Questions are being asked about where the £500m funding for prevention will come from. The draft budget was always going to entail cuts, so it’s little surprise that prevention will largely be resourced by the reallocation of existing funds.

The key issue here is that just £260m will come from the Scottish Government with the remaining £240m to be sourced from local authorities and NHS boards. Ensuring that these funds are released will be one of the biggest obstacles to realising the Scottish Government’s vision for prevention.

Alex Neil MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, has pledged publically that lessons will be learned from the failings of the Fund for the Care of Older People and incorporated into the design of a new funding mechanism for other areas.

This is an issue of power and responsibility – of which the Third Sector has little at the moment. We need strong leadership and direction from Government to stop vested interests allowing prevention funds to be swallowed up by acute services or local government structural reform.

It’s time for a major cultural shift in public authorities’ and wider public sector organisations’ mindsets – starting with a move away from institutional protectionism.

Another fear is that local authorities and NHS boards will simply rebadge existing acute services as prevention.

Unless the Third Sector is included in the decision-making around allocating the change funds there is a real danger that Scotland could miss out on this exciting opportunity to revolutionise public services by supporting genuinely preventative approaches which reduce demand for expensive services and produce better outcomes for its people.

Putting local authorities or health boards in charge of change funds is akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

The Scottish Government needs to think differently and allocate a significant part of the change funds monies directly to the Third Sector.

In doing so, much was made of the sheer volume of third sector briefings submitted to MSPs to inform this debate. The sector made its voice loud and clear as the Scottish Parliament debated the UK Coalition Government’s Welfare Reform Bill and this is an important victory for our sector and the people and communities we work with.

Not only do the UK Welfare proposals blow a hole in Swinney’s draft budget, but they undermine the very ethos of a supportive approach we have been moving towards in Scotland to help people lift themselves out of poverty and into meaningful employment.

This is an unprecedented move in Scottish politics as both the main parties have strayed into territory which is uncomfortable for them.

Scottish Labour, for the first time, railed against powers which are wholly reserved to Westminster by moving an amendment against the UK Welfare Reform Bill.

Then the SNP supported this amendment to their motion despite it arguably being lodged by their political arch enemies in Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament’s part in the debate centres on a Legislative Consent Motion that they need to pass to assent to changes that affect devolved powers.

But these are minor and fairly technical so, even if the Scottish Parliament does not pass this LCM, they can’t stop the main provisions of the UK Welfare Reform coming into force. This renders Labour and SNP’s rejection of the LCM largely symbolic.

Nonetheless, there is now such dissent across the UK about the proposals that a devolved Parliament making a stand against bad UK legislation could well prove to be the tipping point.

It could be the nudge needed to send some of the most damaging aspects of the UK Welfare Reform proposals back to the drawing board.

As a sector we now need to use this unusual consensus to our advantage and ensure that our MSPs have all the ammunition they need in their scrutiny of the UK Welfare Reform Bill.

We are striving for cross-party rejection of the Welfare Reform Bill and this move is a strong indication of the SNP and Labour’s lack of support for the Bill.

SCVO supports Nicola Sturgeon’s call for further scrutiny of the finer details of welfare reform and what it would mean for the people of Scotland.

The Scottish Government and Scottish Labour are clearly listening to the concerns of the third sector about the impact of welfare reform on the most vulnerable people in our communities.

Now it’s critical that the Scottish Parliament as a whole conducts urgent and intense scrutiny of the Bill over the coming months and fully engages the third sector in it.

In the near future, this change could come in the shape of the irrelevant Scotland Bill currently under scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament and working its way through Westminster.

But it is apparent the Scotland Bill has already been overtaken by events courtesy of the SNP’s comprehensive victory in the 2011 Scottish Election. The referendum on independence that the SNP’s victory has guaranteed will see the Scotland Bill superseded before it can even be fully implemented.

In any case, simply debating which powers should or should not be devolved is too abstract. The key question should be about what are we going to use these powers for.

A discussion on wider social and economic issues is required. What would an independent Scotland do with its powers over benefits? How would control over Job Centre Plus change the nature of support for unemployed people?

There are other hitherto unexplored questions: what should the tax regime be for Scottish charities? What would Scottish international development policy look like? How could control of the Crown Estate benefit the whole Scottish community? What kind of immigration policy should Scotland have?

To move this debate forward we need to create an opportunity to have a conversation that frames the discussion differently.

This dialogue needs to consider: ‘what kind of Scotland do we want to see?’, ‘how do we get there?’ and then ‘which powers would we need?’

The third sector must be part of this debate. It is a huge reservoir of expertise on this and other policy issues. Our organisations have the capacity to reach people and communities on a scale which the political parties lack.

We need to think about the pivotal role we can play in facilitating discussion and debate in the run up to the forthcoming referendum.

It’s time to have a debate which looks at the current barriers and challenges; at how to make Scotland thrive and prosper; and, in the current global economic climate, the kind of Scotland we can afford.

Starting by considering the Scotland we want to see, and then working out the powers we would need to achieve that vision – that’s what a real a debate about the future of Scotland should look like.

And that debate is too important to be left to the politicians – it belongs to us all. It’s about people not powers, so we need to be at the heart of this debate.

The Scottish Parliament must take this opportunity to challenge Legislative Consent on this basis.

Key Questions

1. How can we ensure that Scotland’s public services will not be put in a position where services are withdrawn to the extent that even the third sector cannot pick up the pieces for bad welfare reform?

2. Is it now possible to maintain a UK-wide approach to benefits policy when it diverges so keenly from devolved welfare policies?

3. How can we instead, move to a vision of welfare reform that works for Scotland, to ask the questions: ‘what kind of welfare in Scotland do we want to see?’, ‘how do we get there?’ and ‘which powers would we need?’ What are the issues?

The UK Welfare Reform Bill is at serious odds with devolved welfare provision:

• There is a divergence of policies where benefits are reserved to Westminster whilst health and social care policy is devolved to the Scottish Parliament

• The UK Welfare Reform Bill has now taken this divergence to the next level, bringing a punitive approach to welfare which is at odds with the supportive approach that successive Scottish Parliaments have developed for Scotland

• This will result in increasing difficulties for some of our most vulnerable people and communities, for Scotland’s public authorities (who will have to pick up some of the costs being dropped by Westminster), and for Scotland’s third sector organisations (who will end up picking up the pieces)

• There are specific issues such as the impact of housing benefit cap on homelessness, the downgrading from Disability Living Allowance to Personal Independence Payments, the devolution of council tax benefit with a 10% cut, and sanctions for job-seeking parents which don’t account for the lack of statutory childcare in Scotland

• Taken in totality the UK Welfare Reform proposals left unchecked could blow a hole in the Scottish budget

• One of the biggest concerns is that much of the detail of the proposed legislation has been left for secondary legislation, so the Scottish Parliament cannot even plan for the impact on services in Scotland.

Contact us

Ruchir Shah, Policy Manager 0131 474 6158 ruchir.shah@scvo.org.uk

Charlotte McNeill, Communications Officer 0131 474 8045 or 0779 060 1995 charlotte.mcneill@scvo.org.uk

But neither he nor any of the delegates fell into the trap of assuming that giving someone the key to a house was the same as giving them a home, that intangible asset that is so bound up with our identity and our well being.

This point was emphasised by Raymond Young, a pioneer of community housing. He said that it was easier to address “houselessness” than homelessness, but went one step further and reflected on how easy it is to slip from homelessness into hopelessness as people become overwhelmed by the complex circumstances that have led to the loss of their home in the first place.

The first step in building hope is being able to envisage life being different from the way it is at present. That ability is crucial.

I was reminded of a visit we made with the Christie Commission to one of Scotland’s local authorities. We were discussing the importance of ensuring that local communities have a say in the kind of public services they receive.

“That’s not the problem,” we were told. “The problem is the poverty of aspiration in many of our communities. They put up too easily with things that could be much better.”

Is that the case? Are some of our communities so bereft of vision and expectations that they cannot imagine how things could improve? Or are their ambitions different from the plans and programmes that officials, and even people in the voluntary sector, have made for them?

The Christie Commission put great emphasis on giving communities a say in planning their services. To do this well will require a lot of careful listening, a lot of patience and a lot of encouragement.

Giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee today (Tuesday 4 October) Martin Sime, Chief Executive, SCVO will outline how the Scotland Bill has failed to address the issues which directly impact on Scotland’s most vulnerable people and communities.

“The Scotland Bill ignores the real areas where devolution clashes with UK policy – health and care, benefits, employability. These are the issues that directly affect people and they are still significantly split between Westminster and Holyrood,” said Martin Sime, Chief Executive, SCVO.

“The value of the Scotland Bill is now virtually meaningless, as the major disparities in powers that will directly impact on Scotland’s people and communities have been ignored.

“Aspects of reserved powers can and are being used in ways which impinge on the ability of Scottish Ministers to exercise devolved powers. The Bill misses the opportunity to resolve these issues and instead focuses on minor matters which don’t make a difference to people’s lives.

“We need to rethink how we develop devolution. We should start by considering what kind of Scotland we want to see and what kind of change we want to happen. Only then should we move on to look at the powers we would need to make that vision a reality.

“In any case, we will have an independence referendum before the Scotland Bill is fully implemented and it’s extremely likely that the outcome will not be an endorsement of the Scotland Act’s provisions.

“The real debate is about the future of Scotland we want to see not a Bill which is now irrelevant.”

The value of the Scotland Bill is now uncertain, as major disparities in powers that will directly impact on Scotland’s people and communities have been left unexplored

SCVO believes we need to start by considering the Scotland we want to see, and then work out the powers we would need to achieve that vision – a debate about the future of Scotland

Key Issues

• The Bill fails to address the real issues where devolution isn’t working. The real things that affect people’s lives – health and care, welfare, employability – are still significantly split between Westminster and Holyrood – the Bill is silent on these issues

• The current devolution settlement is causing difficulties as there is a divergence of policies in key areas i.e. Welfare. This is likely to result in increasing difficulties for the most vulnerable in our society who are most directly affected by this and also public sector agencies ability to provide help and support to them

• This is illustrated by the current strategic issue relating to Welfare Reform, which is centred on the problems of benefits being reserved to Westminster whilst health and social care are devolved to Holyrood

• It is not fit for the future – the Bill does nothing to anticipate the longer term. For example, in how governments will raise the bulk of their money from taxation in the future or how devolution will lead to a divergent approach to the delivery of public services

• There is a lack of credibility with and understanding of the bill – it was clear from evidence this week, that even the UK Government can’t fully explain how the income tax proposals would work. This poses the question, how do we know if they are worth supporting or using

• The process that led to the Scotland Bill was flawed. Higher standards of consultation, engagement and consensus building are required for significant changes to the devolution settlement – this debate is too important to be left to the politicians, it belongs to the people of Scotland

• The Bill has been overtaken by events. Even if the Bill is passed in its present form the provisions in the Bill and are unlikely to be implemented before the referendum

• Rather than debating which powers should or should not be devolved as a starting point, there is an opportunity to frame the discussion differently, to ask the questions: ‘what kind of Scotland do we want to see?’, ‘how do we get there?’ and ‘which powers would we need?’– it is a debate about the future of Scotland

Introduction

This briefing builds on SCVO’s evidence to the previous Scotland Bill Committee’s scrutiny of the Scotland Bill and to the UK Parliament Scottish Affairs Committee enquiry earlier this year (see SCVO response ).

This is an update to SCVO’s evidence taking into account the new political context which has been created as a result of the outcome of the Scottish Parliament election, in May, 2011. As an organisation which is driven by the needs and interests of a diverse range of voluntary organisations, we offer commentary on the disparities in powers that will directly impact on Scotland’s people and communities have been left unexplored and which ought to have been considered for inclusion in the Bill, with a particular emphasis on welfare reform.

This is not an issue of politics, it is simply an issue of how we align powers and policies to most effectively meet the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. In effect, for the Third Sector, it is all about coherence and management co-ordination, improving quality of service, and is all about the service user

Failings in the process

While the limited public debate about powers for the Scottish Parliament has concentrated on specific areas of reserved responsibility such as Corporation Tax, there was an obvious missed opportunity to discuss wider social and economic policy.

What would an independent Scotland do with powers over benefits? How could control over Job Centre Plus change the nature of support for unemployed people? SCVO believes that all proposals to amend the devolution settlement ought to involve an open consultation and engagement process. This is where people, their communities and the organisations they work with can consider the pros and cons and the overall impact of the major political decisions that will change their lives. We believe any constitutional changes require a much higher standard of public involvement.

The extent to which particular aspects of the Scotland Bill are coherent, sufficiently transparent and widely understood has a major bearing on the legitimacy of the Bill. We stated in our response to the previous Scotland Bill Committee our view that the Calman Commission, the subsequent UK command paper and eventual Scotland Bill did not succeed in garnering the public involvement it required. The lack of proper public involvement set an unhelpful precedent about how to do devolution legislation. In our current discussions with the sector on the forthcoming referendum early responses from the third sector suggest that rather than debating specific powers, a debate about purposes is more likely animate engagement. It’s not about what powers we want, it’s what we want to do with the powers, and therefore what powers we need.

That is, our starting point must be what kind of Scotland do we want to see?

The Scotland Bill itself

It can be argued that the major strategic weakness of the current Scotland Bill is that it was essentially a political/politician-led initiative which failed to build a wider consensus. Politically, the value of the Scotland Bill as currently proposed in the new political context now seems unclear. The questions which still arise are: does the Bill represent a sufficiently significant transfer of powers to represent a genuine ‘middle ground’ between the status quo and full independence?

Will it give us a position from which we can assess where Scotland needs to go? We do not believe so, as it is mainly small issues which loom large in the Bill. While there is nothing wrong with devolving air rifle licensing or Scotland having the power to set speed limits – these are minor matters which don’t amount to any significant transfer of powers.

We think this is a serious issue since the central feature of devolving aspects of income tax will not have come into effect before any referendum. It seems most likely to us that the proposals in the Bill will be superseded by events, raising the question about whether it is preferable to withdraw, or decline to endorse, these proposals at this point. Our main critique of the Scotland Bill is that it fails to recognise the diverging social policy context between Scotland and the UK Parliament.

In some ways this divergence is a natural conclusion to devolution itself and was its central purpose but this has been accelerated by the widening of political divergence. The consequence is clear – there are aspects of reserved powers which can and are being used in ways which cut across the intentions and priorities of Scottish Ministers in their exercise of devolved powers.

Areas of divergence of powers that remain unresolved

The third sector has, from time to time, highlighted many other areas of public policy and legislation which really do need to be examined for their “fit” with devolution.

For example:

• Welfare reform – the current devolution settlement is causing difficulties as there is a divergence of policies and this is likely to result in increasing difficulties for those directly affected, and also for local authorities (who are having to pick up some of the costs being dropped by Westminster) and third sector organisations (who can end up picking up the pieces)

• Employability – the introduction of the Work Programme cuts across the development of Scottish job creation policy and economic strategy and what a distinctive Scottish approach to employability might look like

• The distribution of the proceeds from the National Lottery – e.g. top-slicing of funds for the Olympics undermined longer-term planning of the Scottish directions of the Big Lottery Fund in Scotland • Control over the Crown Estate and its direct link to community regeneration policy that involves those communities directly affected (See SCVO response )

• Economic powers – the Bill is silent on real powers where Scottish Ministers could shape the Scottish economy. Corporation tax, Crown Estates income, progressive income tax variations etc are not included

Conclusion

Our main critique of the Scotland Bill is that it fails to recognise the diverging social policy context between Scotland and the UK Parliament. In some ways this divergence is a natural conclusion to devolution itself and was its central purpose but this has been accelerated by the widening of political divergence.

The consequence is clear – there are aspects of reserved powers which can and are being used in ways which cut across the intentions and priorities of Scottish Ministers in their exercise of devolved powers. In this context the key question is: Is the Scotland Bill still relevant? If the Scotland Bill is really to work for the people of Scotland, it needed to resolve the disparity in powers which has created the major anomalies we have highlighted above. As such we are left with a Bill that does not address the issues which directly impact on some of our most vulnerable people and communities.

If we are to build on the Scotland Bill, then we need to rethink our approach to developing devolution, an approach which starts with the kind of Scotland we want to see, and engages everyone fully in making it real. It is a debate about the specific elements of constitutional change and what they would mean to the people the Third Sector advocate for and supports.

That is the debate about the future of Scotland we want to see.

A Case Study:

UK Welfare Reform

The UK Government programme of welfare reform will have a huge and largely detrimental impact on many Scottish families. There is a strategic element to Welfare Reform, which is centred on the problems of benefits being reserved to Westminster whilst health and social care are devolved to Holyrood. Health, social care and benefits are clearly closely intertwined and can also impact on Scottish employability and housing policies.

The current devolution settlement is causing difficulties as there is a divergence of policies and this is likely to result in increasing difficulties for those directly affected, and also for local authorities (who are having to pick up some of the costs being dropped by Westminster) and third sector organisations (who can end up picking up the pieces). This is the issue that we have previously unsuccessfully asked both the Calman Commission and the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee to address. It is clear to many in the voluntary sector in Scotland that these proposals do not represent the views and interests of the people of Scotland. Furthermore, they will impact adversely on many areas of public policy, including meeting the care needs of older people, social housing, the ability of people with disabilities to live independently and so on.

Any such a programme of cuts has a shunting effect of placing additional burdens on those public finances which are controlled by the Scottish Parliament and delivered by Local authorities and NHS Boards. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has commented – “The heavy reliance on secondary legislation may impede the government’s ability to assess the total impact of the measures on protected groups and to assess compliance with equality legislation Convention rights.”

SCVO contends that the reliance on secondary legislation also makes it, at best, exceptionally difficult to assess the Scottish-specific impact in terms of numerical consequences, such as x Scottish residents will suffer y losses. We are therefore forced, to an extent, to rely on arguing principles and on a certain amount of conjecture. We regard this as unsatisfactory.

There is also a clash in approach to public services that will create a recipe for confusion. The increasing disparity between Westminster controlled benefits system and the direction of travel of Scottish health and social care is of particular concern. For example, the Self Directed Support (Scotland) Bill (SDS Bill) has been welcomed as a move towards an outcomes focussed, personalised care system that individuals can control and direct.

Local authorities are moving rapidly in that direction. However, the draft assessment procedure for the UK Personal Independence Payment (PIP), which is to replace Disability Living Allowance (DLA), has received widespread criticism for appearing to revert to a medical model of “life and limb” care in stark contrast to the SDS Bill’s move towards personal fulfilment.

Whatever the merit of any particular approach to social policy, these issues raise the wider question of whether it is possible to maintain a UK wide approach to benefits policy within the divergent policy and practice contexts which are the inevitable outcome of devolution. We think not. But we also think that this issue indicates just how far short the Scotland Bill falls from being fit for the future.

The most recent funding updates are only available to SCVO members. The password for this edition of the funding update is in your latest member bulletin. If you have lost your password please email membership@scvo.org.uk and we will email it to you.

• 15-16 November 2011

The course is designed to help participants design and deliver learning to small groups.

Participants should be new to training or individuals who have had no previous formal training.  The learning on this course will be enhanced if the participant has a specific piece of training they are going to deliver a few weeks after the course. Contact Helen Swatton
0141 559 5019
helen.swatton@scvo.org.uk

Please fill in the form below to book your place on the course:

cforms contact form by delicious:days

But this morning’s interview (Monday 3 October) – on Richard Desmond’s new Health Lottery did make me think:

Why are people surprised the third sector is driven by values, morals and ethics? It shouldn’t come as a shock that the majority of organisations and individuals in the sector make decisions on these factors – organisations look at funders to see if their values align with their own.

The trustees and senior management making these decisions have a responsibility to think carefully about the source of any money – whether it’s grants, loans or large donations.

Charities and voluntary organisations have higher levels of trust than anyone else and accepting monies from any source can put both trust and reputation at risk with the wider public and other donors.

For me, reputation is a vital element in this equation. This is why I called Richard Desmond’s new lottery into question because unfortunately the man himself is at the basis of the sector’s concerns.

Aside from concerns over the paltry percentage of funds actually going to charity (just 20.3p from each £1 ticket), a significant element of Desmond’s business and money is in the pornography industry which is linked to the abuse of women. Are his motivations really altruistic or are they driven by business?

The new Maggie’s Centre in Glasgow opened today – a great day for the sector. A friend of mine is a long-time major fund-raiser for Maggie’s – he organises lots of very well supported events and raises lots of cash, I have supported these events myself.

Now let’s say (completely hypothetically!) that Maggie’s were taking money from Richard Desmond, would I continue to support his events and give my money to Maggie’s? Probably not.

Now, in the overall scheme of things that might not mean a lot to them, but the cumulative effect of other people thinking the same way could be significant.

I recognise donations are down and money is stretched very tightly. The money from this new health lottery – a potential £5m if it’s successful – promised for Scotland seems very enticing.

But as someone who knows a bit about reputation and stakeholder management I would caution any organisations to think carefully.

I’m not saying not to take money from this new lottery but to consider all the risks and, if you do, be ready to justify why you did.

John Downie, Director, Public Affairs, SCVO, said:

“We are examining the Government’s response to the Christie Commission in detail but – as with the Spending Review announcement – we welcome its commitment to focus on and progress the prevention agenda, and its recognition of the role to be played by the third sector in the delivery of public services.

“Investing in preventative programmes, particularly in adult social care, early years and tackling re-offending, and using the expertise, experience and innovative approach of our sector is the best approach to reduce demand for expensive health and care services.

“SCVO will be working hard to continue to influence the public services reform agenda and working with the Scottish Government to deliver on its commitment for investment in third sector-led prevention programmes by public sector agencies. Our Convener Dr Alison Elliot has been appointed to the newly-formed Public Sector Reform Board, giving the sector further opportunity to help shape the reform of public services agenda.”

Read the Scottish Government response to the Christie Commission.

Read our initial response to the Christie Commission (April 2011).

Martin Sime, SCVO

How can the government help people to help themselves and their fellow citizens to address their individual and common needs?

I think this ought to be one of the pivotal questions in public service reform. For me it goes to the heart of debate about the role of public services, their efficacy and sustainability. The context, of course, is economic stagnation and cuts in public expenditure. This means that we can’t carry on as before.  I’ve not heard a convincing narrative about how to cope without a major move towards people helping themselves and helping each other. I suspect there isn’t one. 

Rhetorically, the First Minister is already there. Launching the Programme for Government on 7 September he said:

“Our vision encompasses a Scotland where people collaborate; creating a new social partnership with Scots empowered to take responsibility for improving their own lives”    

It’s time that we put people at the heart of the debate. And let’s face it there is no Plan B anyway. More hospitals, more prisons and more public services trying to mop up what Christie called “failure demand” would be an unattractive prospect in better financial times, but it’s not even an option now.

The debate is no longer about whether it is important to encourage people to take more control of their own lives – heavyweight evidence from the Chief Medical Officer and the Christie Commission confirms its value. The challenge for government now is about how.

Markets, means testing and the so-called Big Society seem to be the direction of travel down south, but these are counter-cultural to the Scottish way.  That there is no political or public appetite for such approaches is evidenced by the First Minister’s call for “the creation of a renewed sense of community (alongside) personal responsibility”. 

And new research, published last week by NCVO, indicates that imposing government agendas on people’s existing voluntary activities was almost unanimously rejected.  It reinforces my gut feeling that the Big Society is a toxic brand – it puts people off when government has a plan for you.   So lecturing us all about responsibility won’t work. 

Government also needs to steer away from the increasingly dull debate about public sector structures and infrastructures, where vested interests still dominate. Should local government or the NHS lead on integrating health and care?   How many police and fire service hierarchies are needed to secure local accountability? How many hours should teachers work?  

If form is to follow function these are the wrong questions to ask – you don’t decide how care is organised until there is a vision for what the purpose is.  And you can’t really do that until there is a convincing strategy to help people help themselves and each other, before they reach the point of needing expensive health or care interventions. In my book, that’s how you do prevention.

The enabling state is not a new concept. There are many good examples out there where government has played just the right role in empowering citizens and enabling communities to do things for themselves. The problem is that there just aren’t enough of them. And those that do exist often do so in a fragile state, unable to compete for limited resources with a public sector behemoth still based around professionals, buildings and a municipal philosophy of welfarism.

It’s worth reminding ourselves that many island and rural communities have been revitalised through community ownership; that community-owned renewable energy projects have transformed the prospects of many others; that Housing Associations, Credit Unions and Development Trusts have effected a substantial transformation to many lives and to many communities; that through self management, the Long Term Conditions Alliance is able to assist thousands of people to support themselves and each other at significantly reduced cost to the state.

What all of these initiatives have in common is that they received just the right level of support and assistance from government and they came together because people wanted them and wanted to be part of running them.   Government recognised the value of that and supported them in the right way.  

What’s more, there wasn’t a procurement strategy in sight. There’s a growing view that commissioning is disabling the third sector, forcing it to deliver to ever tighter service specifications in a price sensitive competition with itself.

The commissioning industry contagion is spreading, the guidance on how to do it is getting thicker, and the actual practice is getting more contentious. We have all lost our way if we think that getting voluntary organisations to deliver in this way is somehow going to change the nature of public services and make them fit for the future. Commissioning is failing to get the best out of the third sector.

Fortunately, no-one has worked out how to commission self help. Parts of government have, from time to time, found good ways to support it.

The next big step we need to take is to join the dots and make connections between what’s already working. We need to ask ourselves: how can personalisation help drive regeneration?   Or how can a renewed focus on rehabilitation of offenders be used to build the fabric of the communities they came from? 

If the government wants to answer these questions it must step out of its departmental and national/local silos. This is a big ask of course, but there is a strong case for an over-arching approach which puts people at the centre. We need to ask policy makers everywhere to proof their new ideas and new service models against the proposition – will it help or hinder people to help themselves and others? Will it build community and personal capacity or not? 

At least in the health and care field, everyone now agrees that self-directed support and asset-based approaches will introduce a new paradigm based around people making their own choices to meet their own needs.   If properly embraced these concepts could and should revolutionise services, handing power to citizens to do what they need to continue to help themselves.  

The new role of government is to provide the resources which enable that to happen rather than the services which they expect people to use. Instead of getting a list of residential care homes and being invited to choose which, there will be an option to meet your care needs in a way which builds on what you have, including relatives, friends and neighbours, meeting your needs in a way which is personal to you. People will be encouraged and supported to help themselves.  The formal Duty of Care will be replaced by a Duty to Support.

And we can apply this thinking to other areas of public policy. Regeneration urgently needs some new asset-based thinking – I sense it’s edging towards a community empowerment approach, but it’s still too entrenched in Community Planning and physical infrastructure. Employability is captured by concerns about procurement – a customer-led public service approach is desperately needed. You could make a case for it in criminal justice and education too.

Of course this would herald big implications for the public sector workforce and how it works with people who use services, and for the professions, who need to shift decisively into to a public servant mindset.  And for the providers too who will have to adjust or go under and also for the allocation of resources.  But the thing is, we all know that this has to happen anyway – what’s been missing is a convincing narrative about how.

But I think it is possible. Rather than the kind of vacuous exhortations to take responsibility for libraries and parks which we hear from the Prime Minister (and the “we’re too busy” responses from middle England), Scotland has a collectivist tradition which is built on social solidarity and a strong sense of community.   I’m not naïve enough to think that it happens everywhere or that it isn’t being challenged but helping people to help themselves is part of our culture – government needs to get behind that and find ways to make it  a bigger, more pervasive part of public life.

This move is long overdue. It’s the missing link in a complex policy agenda.   It’s what change funds should be about.

It’s the only way Scotland can face a growing demographic challenge and change existing patterns of service. We must stop being distracted by the discourse on structural reform and make supporting people to help themselves and each other a purpose of government at the very highest level.      

The best way for me to finish is to complete the First Minister’s quote

“…maximising the opportunities presented by our greatest asset – our people”

Martin Sime, Chief Executive, SCVO, said:

“We can’t allow structural reform to continue hijacking the debate on reforming public services. Helping people to help themselves before they require expensive health or care intervention is now the only option to revolutionise health and care services and save the government money.

“We call on the Scottish Government to step out of its departmental and national/local silos and develop a new approach to public service delivery that puts people – the greatest agents for change – at its heart.

“We know more of the same won’t do. More hospitals, more prisons and more public services trying to mop up problems won’t work. 

“We welcome the Scottish Government’s major shift in focus to prevention and continued confidence in the third sector demonstrated in yesterday’s Spending Review. Public authorities must now live up to these commitments from John Swinney by working together to resource prevention and the third sector.”

Read the full speech

SCVO welcomes strategic shift to prevention and greater role for third sector in revolutionising Scotland’s public services, but warns that prevention funding mustn’t be hijacked by acute services and structural reform

The major shift in focus to prevention and continued confidence in the third sector in the Scottish Government’s Spending Review was warmly welcomed by SCVO.

But it warned that public authorities must live up to these commitments from John Swinney by working together to resource prevention and the third sector.

John Downie, Director, Public Affairs, SCVO, said:

“This is a real statement of intent. Boosting funding for preventative initiatives over the next three years indicates that the Scottish Government wants to do things differently.

“We welcome the move as investing in preventative programmes, particularly in adult social care, early years and tackling re-offending, is the best approach to choke off demand for expensive health and care services that we can’t afford.

“To make this happen the third sector must be given a role to play in decision making around the allocation of Change Funds. We also must ensure that sufficient emphasis is given to genuinely preventative approaches which reduce demand rather than redirecting it to different patterns of service.

“Scotland cannot afford to miss out on this opportunity of doing things differently by allowing the funds to be hijacked by acute services or local government structural reform.

“The third sector has the experience and expertise in delivering prevention programmes to revolutionise public services and produce better outcomes for the people of Scotland.”

Performing Rights Society Ltd (PRS)

Performing Rights Society Ltd (PRS) collects royalties on behalf of the composers and publishers of music. Management committees of village halls, community centres, church and similar halls run by voluntary organisations are obliged to ensure that a license from PRS is obtained if PRS controlled music is performed on the premises. This music includes records, CDs, tapes, radio, television or performers in person.

The tariff for community buildings is ‘CB’ and based on 1% of defined annual income and starts from a minimum of £42 per year. The defined income includes door takings, hiring charges and subscriptions but not grants, VAT, interest, gifts and donations. Please note that if is found that the premises should have held a licence and one has not been applied for, PRS will charge at the higher (standard +50%) royalty rate for the first year of the licence instead of the standard royalty rate.

If your music use is very low and your income is disproportionately high, you could opt to be charged using Tariff GP and pay only for the specific devices and events that require a licence.

Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL)

Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) issue licenses and collect the royalties due under copyright law when sound recordings are used in public on behalf of the companies producing records, tapes and CDs.

Prior to 1 January 2011 not-for-profit organisations were exempt from paying public performance fees to PPL for various uses of recorded music providing that certain conditions were met. This exemption has now been removed.

Additionally, not-for-profit organisations (including Local and Authorities and Government departments) were exempt from paying public performance fees if they only used broadcast recorded music (radio and television) for the purposes of public performance and did not charge an admission fee for entry into the premises. This exemption has now been removed.

These changes will bring music licencing in line with the rest of Europe. From now on not-for-profit organisations (charities, community halls, voluntary organisations, social enterprises, student union nightclubs and government and local authority buildings) using recorded music will need a licence from PPL. These changes will provide remuneration to performers and record companies.

The law changed on January 1st 2011 but PPL is giving a grace period of one year for community buildings run by non-statutory not-for-profit organisations (most charity shops, small charitable and community organisations and non-governmental not-for-profit organisations) to allow them time to adjust to the new arrangements. Payment of fees will start from 1^st January 2012.

The PPL page on community buildings sets out what buildings they regard as community buildings  and the charges that will apply. Fees will be closely modeled on the PRS for Music tariff. Community buildings with a defined income of less than £10,000 will pay a flat fee of £42 and those with an annual defined income of more that £10,000 will be a fee equal to 1% of defined income.

Small charities and community organisations using the hall will be covered by the building blanket licence but hirers earning a commercial income such as Weight Watchers or exercise instructors will require their own licence.

In a nutshell – Most community buildings will now need a PRS and PPL licence. The premises are covered by the license and will cover not-for-profit activities held in them.

Music Licence changes

PPL have proposed a joint licensing scheme with PRS to make administration easier for organisations. PPL is proposing that community buildings will be able to pay their PPL licence at the same time as they pay their annual PRS licence (although the PPL fee would be backdated to 1 Jan 2012 when the community building first takes up the joint licence). However the scheme is not yet in place.

The Community Sector Law Monitoring Group (CSLMG) of which SCVO is a member, is continuing to fight for a fairer deal for small community organisations paying music licenses. We believe the tariffs proposed are not fair or affordable for many small, not-for-profit organisations.

It is strongly recommended that hall management committees when hiring out any part of its premises have a written agreement so that both the management committee and the hirer know their rights and responsibilities. This establishes a clear contract and between the two parties and could be used in evidence should legal action become necessary.

A hiring agreement is useful even for local organisations and provides protection to both parties. The hire agreement should refer to conditions of let or hire that the hirers agree to comply with.  ACRE have a model hiring agreement that could be used as a model, but take care as some of the conditions may refer to English law. The Angus Federation of Village and Community Halls Handbook and the Aberdeenshire Your Hall Manual provide useful models.

A facilities information sheet is also helpful as it puts all the information you want to get across the hirers all in one place. It could include times the facilities are closed, how to get access, contact details, pricing policy and scale of charges, responsibility for insurance, safety and fire protection information, instructions for heating, lighting and appliances, responsibilities for cleaning and incident reporting.

If the hire is for an event that falls within the scope of the Public Entertainment Licence then it’s important that the booking person alerts the hirer to the conditions of the licence, preferably going through them with the hirer. It is also good practice to walk through the hall with new users to go through your fire safety action plan, show them where things are and how to work heating and appliances etc.

If the trust deeds or constitution permit the committee should decide whether to allow occasional commercial bookings that may provide a useful service to the local community. In this case a formal agreement will be essential.

In certain circumstances it may be wise to ask for a returnable deposit against damages.

Taking bookings

It’s very important that a simple, efficient booking procedure is in place to avoid the possibility of double booking. One person should be responsible for bookings and this may be a committee member or sometimes the caretaker. A simple system of collecting deposits and fees and issuing invoices and receipts also needs to be agreed with the Treasurer.

A desk diary is a simple way of recording bookings perhaps with a monthly planner posted in the hall and/or website. It’s possible to purchase booking software specifically aimed at community venues and halls and there’s also a wide range of general event bookings software available – try searching for “event or hall booking software” or similar on your favourite internet browser. If you’re using a computerised system of bookings ensure adequate back-up systems are in place.

The hall booking secretary should make sure that hirers are aware of the conditions of hire of the hall. If the hire is for public entertainment highlight any special conditions such as fire safety regulations or any special licences they might need should be explained.

A clear policy on bookings will be required. This could include priorities for booking for local groups and individuals and a policy on the age of those that can book the hall. Occasional use for commercial activity should not infringe a halls charitable status but priority should always be given to charitable and community activities within your area.

A system for opening and closing up the hall will be necessary. A caretaker or key holder may do this. Regular users may be issued a key or hirers could collect and return the key on trust. It is good practice to limit the number of keys and keep records of key holders. An electronic entry system could also be considered.

Hire charges

It is impossible to suggest any standard scale of hiring charges as circumstances vary greatly from hall to hall. It might be wise to exchange information about charges with similar halls in the area.

A management committee should, ideally, set its charges to at least cover the annual running costs. Some committees may prefer a policy of keeping letting charges low but ask for local organisations and others to give full support to big annual activities such as, fetes, barbeques and galas, to raise funds for running expenses. In some areas all the organisations are asked to hold a special event once a year to raise funds for the hall.

Whatever the method is chosen it is essential that a management committee makes out a budget to cover its own annual expenses. Things like caretaking, rates, insurance, heating and lighting and minor repairs need to be taken into account. The total expenditure could then be divided by the number of hours the hall is used to arrive at an hourly rate. This rate could then be varied for different types of users.

You could consider:

• Lower rates for long term bookings, rehearsal and preparation time and off-peak use
• Higher rates for those not living in the area and for certain types of activity such as party political meetings, private functions and commercial use.
• Reduced charges should be limited strictly to those organisations that are unable to afford the full rates and not because a club has a strong voice on the committee.
• An all-inclusive charge is simpler, but some halls prefer to make a basic charge for specific accommodation such as the main hall with extra payments for heating and lighting, use of the kitchen, microphone, piano etc.
• Winter charges may be higher than summer

Charges should be reviewed annually and ideally discussed at the annual general meeting since this is a subject that affects all organisations and groups using the hall.

Further information

Angus Federation Of Village and Community Halls Handbook includes simple examples of conditions of let.

Letting it happen! – How to make church buildings work for you  includes sample booking application form, invoice, terms and conditions of let, facilities information sheet.

Your Hall Manual from Aberdeenshire includes two simple example  conditions of let.

Action With Communities in Rural England (ACRE) publication Model Hiring Agreement (£8) includes a more complex model on CD that you can customise for your own use. Beware though that some clauses such as for entertainment and alcohol licences refer to English not Scottish legislation.

One area of particular concern to the group is passporting, which is the process whereby entitlement to one benefit provides automatic entitlement to consideration for something else.  The Scottish Government and COSLA are researching the implications of, for example, the introduction of Universal Credit and PIP to passporting at national and local authority level.  It is clearly important to ensure that people do not suddenly, and unintentionally, lose entitlements when their benefits change to a new system.

SCVO’s involvement

SCVO is represented on this group by Policy Committee member, David Griffiths who is chief executive of Ecas.

The Scottish Government has asked asked us to pull together information from voluntary organisations who use passporting for the provision of their services.  If this applies to your organisation please email brief details to david.griffiths@ecas-edinburgh.org

It is hoped that this guide is of use to the groups that may manage and use such facilities, in understanding their obligations. However, you should contact your local food authority (Environmental Health Service at your local council) for more details on how the legislation applies to your function or operation. They will be able to advise you, in detail, in respect of your particular premises, food handling regime, and potential client groups.

The premises management committee is responsible for ensuring the premises are clean, well maintained and comply with the relevant food safety requirements. Hirers of the hall must also ensure that they meet food safety requirements. It is suggested that you have a standard condition noting this in your hire agreement.

In some cases the hall will not come under the scope of Hygiene Regulations[1] because the hall is not operating a food business with any degree of organisation, in other words operations are carried out on an ad hoc basis. The European Commission has ruled that the legislation should only apply to undertakings, the concept of which implies a certain continuity of activities and a certain degree of organisation. Therefore, operations such as the occasional handling, preparation, storage and serving of food by private persons at events such as church, school or village fairs are not covered by the scope of the Regulations.

Food Safety Act 1990

The requirements of the Food Safety Act 1990 will, however, have to be met. The main provisions concerning the supply of food, with or without payment are that food must meet food safety requirements. This means the food:

• must not be injurious to health
• must not be unfit for human consumption or
• must not be so contaminated that it would not be reasonable to expect that it is used for human consumption

It is recommended that you consult the Food Hygiene: a guide for businesses which gives detailed advice on the legal requirements and on good practice for catering operations. Although it is aimed at mainstream commercial catering operations, it can still be applied to activities carried on in community halls.

For further advice on the safe handling of food consult the Food Standards Agency website.

What happens if the hall does fall within the scope of the legislation?

If the facility does fall within the scope of the legislation, for example a regular event with a degree of continuity and organisation, then the main requirements are as follows:

Registration

The hygiene regulations require that each food business is registered with its local food authority (environmental health). This may be the responsibility of the hall committee. Registration is free and allows the local food authority to know where the food business is and what the activities are.

Temperature control

The hygiene regulations detail temperatures at which, or conditions in which, high risk foods must be kept during preparation, service, storage and distribution. They apply to foods on which harmful bacteria may grow if temperature is not controlled. Such foods include cooked meat or poultry products, egg products, cream cakes, dairy products, prepared salads and sandwiches made with high risk foods etc. Subject to a number of exemptions, such food must either be kept in a refrigerator (8^oC or less are recommended to keep food safe) or a temperature above 63^oC (i.e. kept hot before service). Food which is pre-cooked and then reheated before serving must be reheated to a temperature of at least 82^oC.

Training

It is a legal requirement that those involved in preparing or handling food which is supplied to others (for profit or not) are supervised and instructed and/or trained in food hygiene to a level appropriate to their job. Helping out with simple catering operations in many church halls and community facilities does not mean it will be necessary to receive accredited training. However, every food handler must have received sufficient instruction or training to ensure that they can learn how they can contribute to food safety.

Food Safety Management

The Hygiene Regulations require that food business operators put in place, implement and maintain a permanent procedure based on HACCP principles (Hazard and Critical Control Point). In practice, this means that you must have procedures in place to manage food safety hazards in your business. The food safety management pack, CookSafe, will help caterers comply with these requirements and you should contact your local food authority for further advice.

Public Entertainment License (PEL)

Certain halls may require to have a separate Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) and require to be inspected by the local authority before a PEL licence is granted. The requirement for a license will depend on the type of events that take place. You should contact the local authority for further advice to determine if you need a PEL. The inspection will include elements of food safety as well as health and safety, fire safety etc.

Further information

Food Standards Agency safety and hygiene publications

Letting it Happen! – Making church buildings work for you has a checklist of kitchen facilities

ACRE information sheet 20 – Health and hygiene in village halls. Contains a lot a very helpful information including cleaning schedules, guidelines for kitchens and food handling. But beware some of the regulations and legislation referred to are English law.

[1] Hygiene Regulations – The Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006 No.3), Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs, Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 laying down specific rules for food of animal origin, Regulation (EC) No. 854/2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, as appropriate.

The most recent funding updates are only available to SCVO members. The password for this edition of the funding update is in your latest member bulletin. If you have lost your password please email membership@scvo.org.uk and we will email it to you.

OSCR has announced today [Thursday 15 September] that David Robb has been appointed Chief Executive, taking over from Jane Ryder in October.
David Robb was appointed through an open recruitment process and is currently the Scottish Government’s Head of Public Service Reform and Efficiency. He has previously worked with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and was Head of the Scottish Government’s Public Bodies Policy Division.
OSCR’s Chair, The Very Revd Dr Graham Forbes CBE, congratulated David Robb on his appointment and also thanked Jane Ryder for her ‘massive contribution’ to Scotland’s charity sector.

‘From her appointment in 2003, Jane, with OSCR’s first Chair, John Naylor, has played an instrumental role in establishing and developing a robust, modern regulatory framework in which the public can have confidence. Scotland owes them a real debt of gratitude,’ he said. ‘Now, in David Robb, we have appointed an outstanding candidate as Chief Executive, to lead the organisation in this critical period of future development. David joins an incredibly strong team, and our Board and staff are very much looking forward to working with him.’

David Robb said that he recognised the achievements of OSCR to date and looked forward to reinforcing and developing the Regulator’s role and work. ‘I feel hugely privileged to take on such a well-established organisation and play a major role in the challenges and opportunities ahead,’ he said. ‘Over the past years OSCR has shown itself to be a strong and greatly valued organisation and I’m very much looking forward to meeting as many as possible in the charity sector to hear their views and thoughts as we shape our future priorities,’ he added.

John Naylor and Jane Ryder each announced their retirement at the end of their fixed terms of appointment, as part of OSCR’s succession planning. Since taking up its powers in 2006, OSCR has built up a modern regulatory framework for Scotland’s 23,000 charities. The Regulator will deliver a number of priorities over the coming months, including the launch of OSCR Online which will streamline reporting and introduce online filing for charities, and its final decision on four schools which were issued with Directions in 2008 to meet the charity test.
OSCR’s annual open meeting will see over 200 charity representatives join the Regulator in Perth on 20 September and its annual review, which gives a summary of its work and priorities in the past year, will also be published next week at www.oscr.org.uk
ENDS
Issued by OSCR, 9 Riverside Drive, Dundee DD1 4NY. For further information, contact Mark Simpson or Morag Stewart on 01382 220446 or email: communications@oscr.org.uk

Background
1. OSCR is the independent regulator and registrar of Scotland’s 23,500 charities. OSCR publishes the Scottish Charity Register at www.oscr.org.uk
2. OSCR’s vision is for a flourishing charity sector in which the public has confidence, underpinned by OSCR’s effective delivery of its role.
3. OSCR was established in December 2003 with Jane Ryder as Chief Executive and took up its regulatory powers in April 2006. In February 2011 Jane Ryder announced her intention to step down as Chief Executive as part of OSCR’s succession planning.
4. David Robb was recruited through an open recruitment process, with his appointment confirmed on 14 September 2011. He is currently Head of Public Service Reform and Efficiency at the Scottish Government. Prior to this role, he was Director of Policy and Development at the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman. He has also worked as Head of the Scottish Government’s Public Bodies Policy Division, Head of the National Workforce Unit for the NHS, and Policy Adviser in the First Minister’s Policy Unit.