Chamber
Plenary, 19 Mar 2003
19 Mar 2003 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Charity Law Reform
I congratulate Jackie Baillie on getting the debate. Her personal commitment, as a minister and as a back bencher, to charities is certainly well known. She rehearsed in her opening speech many of the facts and arguments, so I will try not to go over the same stuff.
Personally, I regret the Executive's lack of progress on the issue of charities and voluntary organisations. We have made some progress, but it is regrettable that, in the Parliament's early days, we were ahead of the English in the charities area and now they have surpassed us. They produced two good reports and are doing something about them. To be surpassed by the English on any occasion is a bitter pill to swallow.
We need a stronger bill than the one that the Executive proposes, which defines charities and provides for an independent regulator. We must also address a wider issue. How can we create a society and a government system that encourages, co-ordinates, sustains and monitors charities and voluntary organisations, which have a huge overlap? Monitoring must be related to size. For example, there is no point in small local clubs having to fill in 52-page documents, which the current system tends to involve them in doing. As a basis, there could be a rule that states that each charity has to be registered and that, in order to get a grant, each voluntary organisation has to produce two pages of stuff, for example, which could be on a website and available on paper, setting out their aims, activities, a budget summary, how to contact their officials and so on. That would be helpful. Greater monitoring would be needed for larger organisations, which would have to produce a proper annual return.
We must also consider funding. There must be co-ordination of direct Government funding and lottery funding for core costs. I am sure that members will have heard charities and voluntary organisations state repeatedly that the issue is core costs versus project costs. There is an understandable political desire for new projects. Unfortunately, we live in a contract culture, which results in unsettling, flavour-of-the-month funding and a lack of core funding. There should be far more core funding, which should be directed nationally and have proper advisory arrangements, so that the voluntary sector, local authorities and others are advised on the giving of any money. Good charities and voluntary organisations that do a decent job should get sufficient core funding and be told to get on with it.
We should also fund the continuation of existing projects. Many good projects are wound up after three years, which is a ludicrous waste of money. Then somebody invents a new project and an organisation has to tell lies to qualify for new funding. The whole thing is a recipe for dishonesty and disorganisation. We must have a better system of funding core costs and existing projects.
We should co-ordinate the supervision and funding of such projects through national funding and lottery funding. We must get a grip on the lottery in Scotland, instead of relying on some of what is done in London, such as the New Opportunities Fund and the fund for charities. We must co-ordinate Government giving, lottery giving and local government giving to make best use of the available money. We should avoid duplication of regulation, so that charities are not deaved by incessant requests to fill in more and more forms. A problem lies in keeping the body of charities independent while having some co-ordination at the Government level.
We must have a system that encourages a new breed of voluntary local community organisations, which I am sure that all parties want to encourage. We are working hard to get communities to pull themselves up instead of having initiatives parachuted in. The system must make it easy to start such organisations, which should be monitored with the lightest touch and given financial help when they need it.
The subject is important. I welcome the debate and hope that any of us who is lucky enough to reach the next parliamentary session pursues the issue strongly.
Personally, I regret the Executive's lack of progress on the issue of charities and voluntary organisations. We have made some progress, but it is regrettable that, in the Parliament's early days, we were ahead of the English in the charities area and now they have surpassed us. They produced two good reports and are doing something about them. To be surpassed by the English on any occasion is a bitter pill to swallow.
We need a stronger bill than the one that the Executive proposes, which defines charities and provides for an independent regulator. We must also address a wider issue. How can we create a society and a government system that encourages, co-ordinates, sustains and monitors charities and voluntary organisations, which have a huge overlap? Monitoring must be related to size. For example, there is no point in small local clubs having to fill in 52-page documents, which the current system tends to involve them in doing. As a basis, there could be a rule that states that each charity has to be registered and that, in order to get a grant, each voluntary organisation has to produce two pages of stuff, for example, which could be on a website and available on paper, setting out their aims, activities, a budget summary, how to contact their officials and so on. That would be helpful. Greater monitoring would be needed for larger organisations, which would have to produce a proper annual return.
We must also consider funding. There must be co-ordination of direct Government funding and lottery funding for core costs. I am sure that members will have heard charities and voluntary organisations state repeatedly that the issue is core costs versus project costs. There is an understandable political desire for new projects. Unfortunately, we live in a contract culture, which results in unsettling, flavour-of-the-month funding and a lack of core funding. There should be far more core funding, which should be directed nationally and have proper advisory arrangements, so that the voluntary sector, local authorities and others are advised on the giving of any money. Good charities and voluntary organisations that do a decent job should get sufficient core funding and be told to get on with it.
We should also fund the continuation of existing projects. Many good projects are wound up after three years, which is a ludicrous waste of money. Then somebody invents a new project and an organisation has to tell lies to qualify for new funding. The whole thing is a recipe for dishonesty and disorganisation. We must have a better system of funding core costs and existing projects.
We should co-ordinate the supervision and funding of such projects through national funding and lottery funding. We must get a grip on the lottery in Scotland, instead of relying on some of what is done in London, such as the New Opportunities Fund and the fund for charities. We must co-ordinate Government giving, lottery giving and local government giving to make best use of the available money. We should avoid duplication of regulation, so that charities are not deaved by incessant requests to fill in more and more forms. A problem lies in keeping the body of charities independent while having some co-ordination at the Government level.
We must have a system that encourages a new breed of voluntary local community organisations, which I am sure that all parties want to encourage. We are working hard to get communities to pull themselves up instead of having initiatives parachuted in. The system must make it easy to start such organisations, which should be monitored with the lightest touch and given financial help when they need it.
The subject is important. I welcome the debate and hope that any of us who is lucky enough to reach the next parliamentary session pursues the issue strongly.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
SNP
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3961, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on reform of charity law.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament shares the Scottish Executive's commitment to progressing the reform of charity law; recognises that this will assist in developing the c...
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab):
Lab
As members know all too well, charities form a vital part of Scottish life. Their unique qualities mean that they are especially well equipped to provide to ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Because the stage 3 debate on the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Bill runs on tomorrow, the clock runs on as well. I will advise members when ...
Tricia Marwick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
I apologise for having to rush off before the debate ends.It will not have escaped Jackie Baillie's notice that I have not signed the motion that we are deba...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con):
Con
I declare an interest, as I am the trustee of a small charitable trust. I am also active in some other charities, including the Edinburgh support group of Ho...
The Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport (Mike Watson):
Lab
Yes, why not? I was just responding to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's comments on the act the name of which I will not repeat: it seemed to me to be the mothe...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
Con
I thank Mike Watson for his contribution.We need easily accessible information to help to protect against bogus charities and to make it easy for members of ...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
I congratulate Jackie Baillie on getting the debate. Her personal commitment, as a minister and as a back bencher, to charities is certainly well known. She ...
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green):
Green
I congratulate Jackie Baillie on initiating the debate and on the motion, which I signed. I agree with Tricia Marwick that four years is a long time for 50,0...
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab):
Lab
I congratulate Jackie Baillie on bringing the debate to the Parliament. I had been looking forward to it, but then we heard from Tricia Marwick and Donald Go...
Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Johann Lamont:
Lab
If the member lets me finish my point.In its deliberations on the voluntary sector, the Social Justice Committee said that there had to be progress on charit...
Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Like my colleague Tricia Marwick, I did not sign up to Jackie Baillie's motion. That was not because I did not want it to be discussed—I want it to be discus...
Brian Fitzpatrick (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab):
Lab
I speak with some trepidation, given the substantial experience of many of the members who have spoken in the debate and their contributions to the work of c...
Linda Fabiani:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Brian Fitzpatrick:
Lab
On gracelessness? Certainly.
Linda Fabiani:
SNP
That is the kind of attitude that I have problems with—the attitude that, as the debate is about the voluntary sector and charity law, it is not about politi...
Brian Fitzpatrick:
Lab
I am obliged to Linda Fabiani for that corroboration of my point.I wanted to make a point about the way in which people come to be involved in charities and ...
Jackie Baillie:
Lab
Name one.
Brian Fitzpatrick:
Lab
I was thinking of 1603, actually.The opportunity to conduct that overhaul will be available to us in the next session of Parliament. It can be done through a...
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Hugh Henry):
Lab
Jackie Baillie has done us a favour in giving us an opportunity to focus yet again on the critical role that charities and voluntary organisations play in th...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
The Minister for Social Justice and I were both members of the Social Justice Committee before Johann Lamont became a member of the committee. At that time, ...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
I was about to say that, as far as using the same definition or a different one is concerned, we have ruled nothing out. However, we should bear it in mind t...
Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab):
Lab
As Johann Lamont pointed out, the voluntary sector does not just include organisations that are involved in social justice; it covers sport, the environment,...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
I agree entirely with that comment.I want to return to points that members made about the need for legislation and about putting the regulator on to a statut...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
Con
Is the subject suitable for a committee investigation, or even a committee bill, given that such bills have been one of the Parliament's triumphs?
Hugh Henry:
Lab
That is entirely a matter for the new committees of the next Parliament. Over the first four years of the Parliament, the committees have demonstrated their ...
Meeting closed at 17:46.