Meeting of the Parliament 16 June 2026 [Draft]
I declare an interest as a trustee of the John MacDougall Mesothelioma Trust and the Glenrothes & Area Heritage Centre. I thank the minister for her comments.
As a Fife councillor, I am all too aware of the work that people in the third sector do, much of it unpaid, to step in where council budgets and personnel have, unfortunately, been stretched too thin. I think that everyone in the chamber agrees that third sector providers become vital lifelines in many communities because of that. We all want to do the right thing in supporting them. The reason I lodged my amendment is that I hope to work constructively with the Government on this important issue, as too much is at stake for it to involve the usual Punch and Judy politics of previous sessions.
My feedback rests on three main points: first, the future structure and framework of any proposed funding model, which has been touched on; secondly, the role of local government; and, finally, our expectations for the third sector.
On my first point, I truly believe that no problem can be solved simply by throwing money at it. Although more money is, of course, welcome for anyone who receives it, the way in which the money is given and the conditions that are imposed clearly have massive ramifications for service delivery. Speaking to representatives of colleges and other organisations across my region that are dependent on public funding has been a massive eye-opener for me. A big problem that I have noticed across most Government funding projects is that they lose sight of the issues that they hope to address.
For example, I recently raised with the First Minister the fact that, although colleges and employers receive funding from the Scottish Government, it is structured in such a way that it disincentivises the creation of new apprenticeships, and it does not guarantee the long-term security of some campuses that are at risk of closing. The point that I tried to make then, which the First Minister either did not pick up or refused to answer, was not that the sector needs more money but that the funding structure for how the money is spent is completely at odds with the needs of the college sector and skills development in Scotland. In short, it is all about priorities.
I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government will consider multiyear funding as a minimum standard, as has been advocated by organisations such as Citizens Advice, so that providers can plan services years ahead instead of just crossing their fingers at the end of every Scottish or local government budget. We also need to be aware of the vital role that our councils play in the execution and funding of those services.
Many of us in the chamber have served, or continue to serve, on councils in our respective areas, and we all know that the constituents we represent come from communities with different priorities and different needs—in different council areas or even in neighbouring wards. Too often, policies are ring fenced when the funding from the Government needs to be bespoke to the needs of different council areas. We cannot ignore that. Councils are sometimes forced to use Government funding for certain areas although it is unneeded and they have other entire service areas that are literally dying for want of essential cash.
The duplication of funding and service provision is too common a problem. Therefore, we must ensure that our councils and third sector providers can properly co-ordinate funding and activities so as to streamline service delivery. I would argue that that discussion should be held not just between the Scottish Government and one collective body or sector. All 32 of Scotland’s councils need to have their own unique input into how future funding can best be used in their communities. That emphasises my point about the longevity of third sector providers. We cannot have a situation in which communities are wholly reliant on those services only for Government money to dry up and councils to be unable to fund them.
My final point is about having realistic conversations about what we expect from our third sector. Much of the third sector prides itself on the unique way in which it delivers its services. It is a major part of the appeal of third sector provider services, and it is why they can be favoured over similar services offered by public bodies. However, I feel that we are moving to a point at which third sector provider services are becoming a permanent and necessary appendage of local public service offerings and not just a welcome addition. A deeper conversation about that is needed, as it will change the relationship that we all have with the third sector, and I hope that we can have that conversation not too long after today’s debate.
There should be a commitment by every organisation that is in receipt of Government funding to demonstrate full value for money, to ensure that their presence represents an overall saving from public investment. I lodged my amendment as an open hand to all members in the chamber to engage in more forward thinking when it comes to supporting the third sector. We all value third sector providers. Some of us have needed them, and we, on the Reform benches, are certainly not opposed to funding them where they can fill a genuine gap in local public services. However, we cannot keep going down the same path of funding first and worrying about sustainability later. Sustainability must be baked into the funding from the very start; it must not be just another bumper slogan attached to an obscure policy memorandum. We must prove to the public that we can do things differently, that we can work constructively together on the issue and that we are listening to them. That is why I hope that members will support my amendment.
I move amendment S7M-00356.2, to insert at end:
“; further agrees that a key part of sustainability can include long-term support for organisations, beyond initial funding periods, where there is clear evidence that continued support delivers continued value; recognises the potential efficiencies that organisations can make with long-term budget certainty, and believes that organisations that are in receipt of Scottish Government support and public funds have to commit to deliver the same value for money and reform agenda that was agreed by Parliament.”
Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.