28 October 2008 The Gateway, Perth

Chair – Jill Flye, SCVO

10 am – 11 am: Speakers

Roseanna Cunningham MSP spoke about the National Conversation which she described as a simple proposition: what do you want? 1999 was not the end of the debate that has been happening in Scotland for decades, and now the Government want to hand over power and let the people decide what happens next.

Three principal choices are being put to the public:

1. A small extension of devolution, tweaking the edges and making improvements
2. A radical extension of devolution, with a great extension of powers, particularly over finances. Scotland could have ‘fiscal autonomy’ where Scotland collects all of its own taxes and pays the UK for reserved services.
3. Independence

The paper accompanying National Conversation did not include the option of returning to pre-devolution because no one seemed to be calling for this, but it does not preclude any opinions.

The National Conversation has been incredibly successful compared to other consultations with 250,000 hits on the website and 7500 downloads of the white paper by January 2008. Delegates were encouraged to read the details since there is still room for more responses.

The National Conversation is in its second phase, as in getting the debate out there, and has already been very successful in this. A wide range of organisations are involved in the debate – including Glasgow diocese, the Arts Council, the UK and Ireland E-democracy Exchange and universities. Option 2 was described as the most complex for organisations since independence would return the operating environment to a unitary state, like the UK was before devolution. Under continued devolution, however, there would still be the complexities of overlapping powers and times when devolved powers are hampered by UK Government decisions. These have led to a number of ‘policy knots’ since devolution, where reserved and devolved powers interact – e.g. nuclear weapons and power are reserved, but planning is devolved. Finances coming to Scotland via a block grant from Westminster limits what can be achieved in all areas.

There are still UK-wide voluntary organisations only just realising the need for separate Scottish bodies or structures to deal with Holyrood after nine years of devolution. Independence is easier to understand. Roseanna highlighted her own experience gained at both Westminster and Holyrood, and encouraged voluntary organisations to engage with the constitutional debate.

Stephen Maxwell, SCVO also encouraged organisations to get involved in the debate. He gave som background to SCVO’s involvement in constitutional issues, in advance to the opening of the Scottish Parliament. SCVO’s Policy Committee (of elected voluntary sector representatives) had come behind the yes-yes vote in 1997 in recognition of the opportunities that a Scottish Parliament and devolution of powers to Scotland would offer to voluntary organisations in terms of engagement with the policy makers and influencing the shaping of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. This has certainly proved to be the case, and voluntary organisations have seen legislation brought forward shaped more to the needs of their communities and interests. Eg SCVO had campaigned for several years at Westminster without success for a Charity Law Bill to be brought forward to modernise charity law and introduce proper regulation, and this was brought forward and passed by the Scottish Parliament, and Scottish voluntary organisations had considerable involvement in the shaping of the legislation. 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?

Stephen 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.

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. If we had control over energy, could we put pressure on energy bodies, eg oil companies, to establish community endowments?

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

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 website on http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/

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 will make submissions to both the National Conversation and the Calman Commission. When the Commission was established SCVO was committed to taking the debate on the constitution across Scotland and received funding from the Scottish Government to encourage voluntary organisations to join in with the National Conversation. SCVO sees the establishment of the commission as a positive development, in that all political parties are involved with the review of devolution, and Jill encouraged organisations, where it fits with their views, to respond to both strands of the debate.

11.15 am – 1pm: Group discussions

Present were 21 delegates from the following organisations:

• Dundee Voluntary Action
• Independent Advocacy, Perth and Kinross
• Perth and Kinross Community Transport Group
• Alyth Youth Partnership
• WRVS Perth
• Blair Gowrie and District Freedom Coach Association
• Perth and Kinross Association of Voluntary Service
• CVS Perth and Kinross
• Lead Scotland
• The Web Project
• Access Cars
• Tayside Association for the Deaf
• Fields in Trust
• Perth Association for Mental Health
• Plus Perth
• Ramblers Association Scotland

Key to the vision of a future Scotland was empowering individuals to be responsible and engaged with their communities and decision-making. Accompanying this would be an active, fair and welcoming society and an accessible, open political system that takes on board all views. Solutions would be found for long-standing problems like crime and drug abuse and the voluntary sector would be properly valued.

During the rest of the discussions, the lack of community involvement in the planning process was highlighted as a particular problem. Delegates called for further devolution in areas where Scotland faces different challenges to the rest of the UK, such as postal services, or where Scotland already has power over related areas – e.g. misuse of drugs. Views were mixed over whether further constitutional change would increase the sector’s influence. Some felt that decision making at a more local level would certainly increase opportunities for influence, and others felt that since many local voluntary groups would be dealing with the same local authorities in any event, it would not affect them to the extent that it might benefit larger organisations. The view emerged quite strongly that Scotland-wide bodies had benefitted from devolution and would also benefit from more powers coming to Scotland.

Question 1: What is your vision for a future Scotland?

The following improvements were envisioned:

Government

• Politicians that are accessible to everyone
• A political process that people want to join in with
• Government that is more responsive and represents a wider range of social/economic interests
• Local authorities that are more accountable, innovative and proactive
• Local authorities without party politics or whipped votes
• People who feel empowered by being able to really participate in decision-making and consultations that lead to genuine action
• A maximum term for all elected officials
• Greater community involvement in planning – not just at the implementation stage
• Structures for decision-making that take all views on board and balance different needs
• Independence / not independence
• Would an independent Scotland survive credit crunch?

Equalities

• Fairness and equality for all
• A more tolerant, less judgemental society where everyone is respected
• Everyone being entitled to accessible transport
• Racial equality for all, including migrants

Society

• Solutions to drugs, violence and crime problems
• Social justice and an end to poverty
• Fair, progressive taxation
• Everyone involved in creating a welcoming community that looks after young people
• Encouraging people to become more responsible, particularly from an early age – and to act against disempowerment
• A healthier Scotland
• A society that values individuality and creativity
• More nurturing and celebration of local community successes
• Free lifelong education
• Shared goals and aspirations

Economy

• Greater emphasis on the core economy
• A proper mix of sustainable energy

Voluntary sector

• All organisations having influence, not just those with money!
• Sustained and full-cost funding so that organisations are not compromised in what they do
• Less red tape (e.g. disclosures)
• Greater recognition of the voluntary sector’s role and importance at national and local levels
• Funders interested more in ‘quality’ of service than in ‘quantity’ – outcomes of difference made to lives rather than of numbers using service

Question 2: In what ways could constitutional change help or hinder bringing about your vision?

Further devolution from Westminster to Scotland

• Equalities and benefits devolved – for social justice
• Education and training devolved
• No turning back
• More say on misuse of drugs – health and criminal justice are devolved
• Immigration: Scotland needs more people and workers
• Transport/postal services: greater rural isolation/deprivation in Scotland
• Would a Scottish Parliament be more interested in preserving postal services and promoting community transport?
• Trident – would Scotland support it?
• Fiscal federalism / more control over finances behind policy areas that are already devolved
• Tax system for voluntary organisations
• The public is much closer to MSPs than MPs and it is easier to reach a small population

Further devolution – to local level

• Localism would be more responsive
• Local Government should have more say in amount of Council Tax Benefit
• Community Planning Partnerships currently ignore ordinary people
• Legislation is fine but mechanism is flawed in practice

Voluntary sector / other issues

• Is the key issue getting the ear of the politicians, whatever the constitutional position?
• We could try to meet our aspirations under any constitution
• There has been more support for the Scottish voluntary sector since the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections led to an SNP Government (John Swinney’s support in particular)
• Can’t have National Conversation without an informed public and not everyone has access to new technology
• Is there consensus in Scotland just because everyone wants more powers? What would happen after we got it? Would old divisions resurface?

Question 3: Would an increase in powers extend the voluntary sector’s influence?

Positive answers

• More say in helping those in need and getting quicker access to help
• It seems self-evident if decisions are being made on a smaller, more local basis
• Evidence already suggests this has happened
• Extending powers could extend areas of opportunity for influence
• Scotland could control Lottery funding priorities
• More likely to happen for Scotland-wide organisations, and not everyone is in an umbrella group
• Could cause a cultural change where more people get involved in their communities and local decision-making
• There is greater access to Holyrood than Westminster
• Fiscal devolution would mean more influence on funding decisions
• Influence on transport providers – accessibility agenda

Concerns

• 1999 made no difference to some organisations
• Would English-based funders cut off money?
• Constitutional change would not guarantee secure funding, etc.

• Voluntary sector still has an image problem, having to prove it is professional and has a valid role – bigger concern than the constitution?
• Guidelines for authorities could be published
• Organisations would be dealing with the same people and same local authorities however the constitution is set up
• There is a need for greater access/involvement in decision-making at local authority level.
• Community planning needs more ‘community’ involvement at other than ‘implementation’ level.
• Need a ‘return to common sense’ rather than a concentration of ‘PC’
• While the current situation brought an increase in influence, is there any room left for this to grow?
• What about cross-border powers?

Question 4: What sort of constitution might work best for the voluntary sector around Perth?

• Any constitutional decision must allow proper access and greater involvement before and in decisions by the people
• More power to the people!
• Fiscal devolution and borrowing powers would give the Government more flexibility to tackle problems
• Labour mobility should not be reduced between parts of the UK
• Control over Scottish elections should be devolved
• Procurement practices should include ‘best value’ in contracts
• How much of a constraint would EU legislation be on decisions?
• There should be a more equitable partnership between statutory and voluntary services, and full cost recovery for voluntary organisations
• Too many factors (probably some as yet unknown) make it almost impossible to address this – need to see specific proposals first