14^th October, Waterside Hotel Inverness

Chair – Jill Flye, SCVO

10am – 11am – speakers

Rob Gibson MSP spoke about the National Conversation - We are looking at the constitution and reviewing Scotland’s position in the context of a world that is changing – change, and constitutional change is nothing new or unique to Scotland. Britain has been changing, through an asymmetric devolution process, with Ireland independent; the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey separate; and the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament. The sense of ‘Britishness’ has changed since the two world wars. People in Scotland are now more Scottish-thinking than British-thinking. Ireland has the power to make its own decisions. Having this power doesn’t mean all the decisions are going to be the right ones, which is the case for the big countries too, but being devolved can be a handicap – eg concerning EU representation. There are four basic issues that face all societies:

• Compassion
• Enterprise
• Democracy
• Environment

The Scottish Government is addressing these under its strategic headings of Fairer and wealthier, Smarter, Safer and stronger, Healthier, and Greener.

Scotland is rich in resources but not a rich society.

We have inherited a strange form of centralised democracy and a gap is in local decision making – we don’t really have ‘local’ government and need to devolve power out more into the communities.

Choosing Scotland’s Future, the Scottish Government white paper is providing a focus for comment and debate, and voluntary organisations can also respond to the National Conversation. Rob encouraged organisations to respond to the debate.

Stephen Maxwell, SCVO also encouraged organisations to get involved in the debate. He said that all political parties are looking at changes to the constitution, not just the SNP. Some voluntary organisations will feel it has nothing to do with them, but sometimes even small groups will be impacted on by the different levels of government, and most voluntary organisations will have some reason to take an interest. Eg those in the environment movement, peace groups, and those tackling poverty.

What has been the impact on the voluntary sector of devolution to date? - Access to government and parliament and increased opportunities for influence. Much voluntary sector legislation is shaped by voluntary sector input. The number of people in voluntary organisations who work in policy has increased hugely in response to this. The number of members of the Third force Policy Officer Network has increased from about a dozen or so to over 180. Could further devolution have a similarly stimulating effect?

There are also issues of interest, eg concerning the funding that used to come to Scotland for attendance allowance being withheld since the introduction of free personal care – council tax benefits are likely to be withheld if a local income tax is introduced.

There are few reserved issues that at least some voluntary organisations won’t have an interest in – eg - defence, benefits, pensions, employment, fiscal policy, home affairs (including misuse of drugs), firearms – including air rifles, Political parties and elections

Norman MacAskill SCVO, spoke about the rural dimension – he noted that we have to shout loudly about the rural dimension as policy largely has an urban focus, and solutions for urban areas don’t necessarily work in rural areas. The current additional member system in the Scottish Parliament works well for rural Scotland, as we have both constituency MSPs and MSPs working at a regional level, who come together and work strategically.

Sometimes rural organisations feel over-consulted – a lot of resources can go into responding to consultations – and it is not always an effective means to influence policy.

What is rural policy? – not just farming and agriculture, although that is a big issue - but also health, housing, volunteering – all need to be rural-proofed. The Carnegie Report called for: major expansion in community ownership of local assets; an enhanced role for parish and community councils; a Centre for Excellence supporting rural community development policy and practice on the ground, and encouragement and assistance for local communities to develop and manage their own services and to engage in community planning. A recent Consumer council report highlighted the particular importance of social capital in rural areas. The Scandinavian model has more local level planning, as well as at a regional and national level. Any constitutional change needs to come up with the mechanisms to allow the rural voice to be heard. Local level decision making is much more effective than centralised decision making from a distance.

Jill Flye, SCVO spoke about the Calman Commission strand of the debate:

The Commission on Scottish Devolution (“Calman Commission”) was established in April this year after the main opposition parties represented in the Scottish Parliament voted in December last year, that there should be an independent review body set up to review the devolution settlement. It is chaired by senior academic Sir Kenneth Calman, and it’s members include voluntary sector, union and business sector representatives. The remit is to investigate all aspects of devolution and possibilities for change, except for independence, but including the possibility of returning powers to Westminster if there is a particular call for this to be investigated too. The Commission is also looking for external input, in three main ways –

• Through written submissions to time limited inquiries. An initial inquiry ran in the spring to call for views on what areas the commission should look into, and a more in-depth inquiry ran over the summer.
• Through written responses that can be made to the commission at any time (bearing in mind that the commission intends to publish an interim report towards the end of this year, and a final report in 2009)
• Through attendance at events. Details of events to be held across Scotland are available on the Commission on Scottish Devolution website

Jill emphasised that there is a very large area of overlap across the two strands of the debate – all the political parties in the Scottish Parliament are considering changes that could be made to the devolution settlement - so why not the voluntary sector too! SCVO received funding from the Scottish Government to encourage voluntary organisations to join in the debate. Events have been held for the Third Sector Policy Officer’s Network in March, at the voluntary sector Gathering in June, and this is the third in a series of local events across Scotland on this theme. SCVO has also published the Future Scotland website. This contains links to relevant sites, collated media articles, Frequently Asked Questions, reports from events, details of future events, discussion threads and voluntary sector viewpoints. Delegates were encouraged to take a look at the website and send in their own views or questions.

Questions from the floor

These concerned the outcomes from the Carnegie report – would there be resourcing behind the recommendations (Norman agreed that this may be an issue, as resourcing engagement often is, but that it is one worth arguing for. Rob Gibson gave the example of Scandinavian policies of equivalence, with democracies built from the bottom up. We need to bear subsidiarity in mind – decisions taken as locally as is practicable).

There followed discussion about the localism/ centralism issue as it concerns the enterprise networks, - eg whether the changes with the networks have removed a layer of local decision making, or removed a horrendous amount of duplication.

11.15am – 1pm Group discussions

Present were 16 delegates from the following organisations:

Highland Community Care Forum
Youth Highland
Action for Children
Contact the Elderly in Scotland
Highland ante-postnatal illness support
Highland Buildings Preservation Trust
Highland Community Care Forum
Highland Homelessness Trust
Inverness Volunteer Centre
Kids and Adults Together in Sighthill
Moray Youthstart
Shirlie Project
Highlands and Islands and Morayshire Chinese Association
Visual Impairment Services Highland
Voluntary Action Highland
Youth Highland
Badenoch and Strathspey Community Transport Co.

Much of what was envisioned for a future Scotland was concerned more involvement of local communities in decision-making, a better balance of power that is not just Westminster or central-belt focussed, and services better tailored to individuals. There was also enthusiasm expressed for a Scotland that was a country in its own right, with independence, for some delegates, forming part of that vision. During the rest of the discussions there was a call for further devolution over the areas of defence, employment/ benefits, energy, and economic and social policy to tackle poverty. A strong view was emerging that further devolution to Scotland needs to be accompanied by further devolution at a local level – ie from local government to communities, and there was a call for this to form part of a Scottish constitution (an area currently reserved to Westminster).

Q. 1 What is your vision for a future Scotland?

The following improvements were envisioned:

Communications

• More accessible information
• Improved connectedness
• Better communication/ facilitate conversations
• Jargon banned

Government/ Local government

• Greater feedback/responsiveness from decision-makers
• Less of a gap between layers of decision-makers and better-resourced transitions
• Closer grassroots focus – greater access to the table – e.g. video conference links
• More balanced in power. Not just central belt-focused or Westminster-focused
• More fairness and more involvement in decision making
• More dialogue
• More long-term view
• Support for local area
• More focus on individual needs, more flexible services
• Decentralisation

Equalities

• A Scotland where Chinese feel integrated and participate in Scottish life
• More support for speakers of other languages
• Access for BEM in rural services

Mental Health

• NHS support for mental health available to all
• Build esteem for everyone

Rural

• More/ improved rural proofing
• Recognise diversity both urban and rural
• Rural areas valued

Scotland

• More devolution/independence!
• Scotland will feel as if it is a country in its own right and be seen as such (outside just tourism)
• We would capitalise on the positiveness of the Scottish people, identifying and making use of talent.
• Feel secure whether it’s through social development or capitalism
• Devolve

Voluntary Sector general

• Easier access to funding and support for capacity-building
• Longer-term funding streams for voluntary organisations (five years)
• More central government funding of voluntary organisations
• Regarding voluntary sector need enough funding to provide a professional service
• Social enterprise” should introduce value of immeasurable
• Direct funding and support for unheard voices
• Clout for voluntary sector
• Single Outcome Agreements – how do voluntary organisations feed in?

Q.2 – In what ways could constitutional change help bring about your vision? - Or hinder achievement of your vision?

Further Devolution from Westminster to Scotland

• Defence – devolved to Scotland
• Employment legislation devolved
• No “one size fits all” in addressing poverty
• Policy e.g. on benefits made closer to Scottish organisations
• Benefits totally devolved/pensions too
• More direct local employment
• Energy policy to reflect Scottish needs
• Economic and social policy to be reflective of Scottish situation; implement anti-poverty strategy
• Move closer to the Scandinavian model

Further devolution – to local level

• A constitutional right to standard/equivalent services wherever you live
• Would this mean a transfer of some power over constitution to Scotland?
• Power and responsibility and accountability at a local level
• To oblige government to work with voluntary organisations, communities, service users
• Is there any point in community planning without community involvement?

Powers with UK

• UK gives benefits of scale – services may be cheaper to provide

Voluntary sector / other issues

• Voluntary sector – ring-fenced funding no more – lack of sufficient funds
• Should services be provided by voluntary sector or by social services?
• Voluntary sector should be set up with same guidelines/policies/level of professionalism
• More planning for real events? Do they work/ are they sustainable?
• Funding/interest/need for change – people need to know that change can happen through their involvement
• Local and national government should adopt monitoring/evaluation and provide evidence of outcomes and achievements as the voluntary sector have to.
• Very difficult to measure soft outcomes and show these benefits

Q.3 Could an increase in powers mean an increase in influence for the sector?...or otherwise?

Mainly ‘Yes’ answers

• Probably yes for nationals and bigger ones but how would/could it be made to increase influence of smaller ones?
• We would have more control over lottery funding (and other funding streams)
• It may stop funding being pulled from Scotland for UK initiatives i.e. Olympics funding being put to London rather than benefiting all
• Devolution would give better targeting of resources to voluntary organisations
• Devolution – more awareness of widespread/rural population
• More sustainable voluntary organisations that have longer-term funding may allow for more influence

Concerns

• Probably yes for nationals and bigger ones but how would/could it be made to increase influence of smaller ones?
• Would it give more power to the local authorities and take more away from voluntary sector?
• Need willingness to engage constructively to make voluntary sector more influential
• Government needs to rebuild trust and show that they can be trusted by the public
• The method behind outcomes for voluntary organisations needs to be both qualitative and quantitative – would the voluntary sector have the influence to make changes in how they are monitored and measured?
• Possibility of loss of influence of large UK-wide voluntary organisations; no guarantee but likelihood of strong coordinated influence at Holyrood
• Risk of dominance of Central Belt, need for strong voice for rural areas – how to design structures for this?
• Powers to devolution not enough per se – new approach is needed
• Small voluntary organisations at risk from LAs which are too “narrow”
• Would it mean fewer consultations?
• No more consultations on decisions that have already been made

Influence at local level

• Recurring challenge is for local councils to extend opportunities for local voluntary organisations
• Only if accompanied by onward devolution to the outer edges
• Energy – e.g. connecting local energy to National Grid at reasonable prices
• Continuing need for strong and well-organised SCVO

Q. 4 – What might a ‘voluntary sector constitution’- or a constitution that works well for voluntary organisations in the Highlands be like?

Powers from Westminster to Scotland

• More “employability powers” devolved – e.g. New Deal
• More strategic/coordinated/locally influenced delivery of services and resources
• More and better devolution
• independence

Further devolution (local)

• A constitution which entrenched the Scottish right of local communities to take their own decisions and have their own budgets with spending power (however raised) – the more decentralised the greater the opportunities for voluntary organisations
• Empowering local communities via community ownership of energy, forest
• Localisation is prime objective

Other

• We would have a dedicated voluntary sector minister (someone who has full understanding of the work of the voluntary sector)
• More instructive information and guidelines
• Delivering smart targets – already adopting this way of working
• Stop duplication of work and services
• No more short-term funding for projects that are not sustainable
• More focus on sustainability
• More opportunity and support to voluntary organisations for their accommodation options – organisations want to work within the community but rent/maintenance often too costly – council community buildings e.g. town halls could be offered to voluntary sector for use of community
• Bottom up not top down
• Strong Scottish identity but local identity V. important
• “Devolution has already given the voluntary sector a greater voice
• “This discussion today has opened a whole world of ideas for me”