Born in 1946 and brought up in Cupar, Fife, I was educated at the local school - 14:34
... ... ...
14:46
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): When I volunteered for this debate—
Members: Oh.
Stewart Stevenson: I thought that I would get that joke in before anyone else did. When I volunteered for this debate, I did not realise that I would have the most dreadful frog in my throat. If I do not use my full time—
Phil Gallie: That will be a change.
Stewart Stevenson: Phil Gallie should not encourage me; I might just run over.
It was particularly appropriate that, before this debate, we heard from the Mercy Corps Scotland. In my constituency, the Banff rotary club is working closely with Mercy Corps Scotland in relation to mercy ships that are providing medical assistance off the coast of Africa. I am sure that we all have examples of local organisations that are selflessly supporting those who are less well off than themselves.
When I disagree with the Executive today, I will be disagreeing with myself and other colleagues by the same token. I say that because I think that we all—individually and collectively—have more to do and responsibilities that we do not fully acknowledge.
The other day, someone said to me, "There's a lot of it about." What she was referring to was Government interference in volunteering. Given the plethora of Government announcements, research and consultation that touches on the subject, it would be tempting to agree with her. I certainly accept that the Government sees volunteering as a good thing. Jack McConnell stated in the preface to the "Working Group Report into a National Youth Volunteering Programme":
"I wholeheartedly endorse the recommendations of this report" and he stated that he wants to bring together
"the public, private and voluntary sectors in a long term creative partnership",
which is first class.
There is a particular social value in encouraging those with more resources and skills to contribute to society. There is a moral case for volunteering, although, of course, we sometimes think that we see more of a financial case. That is a temptation to which we are all subject. If we can get a volunteer to do something for us rather than our having to pay someone, there is a clear and defined benefit from doing so.
As politicians, I hope that we are all used to the practical benefits of volunteering, as our own political parties depend on, and are sustained by, our local party workers who work as volunteers. Indeed, I spent 40 years as a volunteer before I gave any real thought to coming to places such as this. I would argue that political parties are perhaps over-professionalising nowadays and are depending too much on the services of people whom they buy in. The role of the volunteer, who will fold and deliver leaflets, knock on doors, man stands in our high streets and participate in local democracy at all levels, remains absolutely vital, but there is a sense in which it may be being marginalised. There is a message for all of us in that perhaps the public see that and are getting a little disconnected from politics. However, this debate is not about politics per se. I am merely illustrating some aspects of volunteering.
The Executive's compact with the voluntary sector is interesting in the light of the minister's remarks. Few members would disagree with its statement that
"The Compact acknowledges that the voluntary sector and the Executive have their own spheres of action".
However, there are issues in some of the Executive's material that are causing concern to people in the voluntary sector. For example, under the heading "Sources for funding" in the voluntary issues unit section of its website, the first thing that the Executive says is that a number of grant schemes are available
"For activities that promote Scottish Executive objectives".
I say to Margaret Curran that that is perfectly proper and that it might be perverse for me to say that the Executive should support people who are working against the Executive's objectives, but that raises real difficulties for a government of whatever complexion in allocating money to the voluntary sector.
In announcing the renewal of the partnership with the voluntary sector, the Government said:
"We share a commitment to delivering the best for our communities."
On the other hand, there is something in the announcement that causes difficulties for some volunteers. The Government added:
"We are also committed to driving up standards in the voluntary sector, by modernising the legal and financial frameworks".
That is good, but in a sense puts on to the voluntary sector many things that volunteers—particularly of my age group—have spent their lives working with in large organisations, and want to escape from.
The statement mentioned
"the challenge of delivering a real culture change and the need for all partners to recognise Compact implementation as a core function within their everyday business".
In a sense, we may be over-regulating and over-guiding some people in the voluntary sector to the detriment of government objectives and perhaps to the detriment of wider public policy. The challenge is, are we transferring interesting and challenging work from local volunteers generally to paid professionals and leaving the low-grade work for those who will work for nothing? Perhaps that is turning people off in general.
Initiatives that seem to come from the centre are welcome, and it is heck of a difficult for somebody in my position—or for anyone else in the chamber—to argue against them. However, some things that are going on cause me a little concern. For example, Pat Shearer, who is an assistant chief constable in Grampian police, is doing an excellent job in getting more special constables on board. I thoroughly support that, but one mechanism that is being explored is starting to pay them to some extent. I wonder whether that really is the right way to go. In the McInnes report on the legal justice system, we see an attempt to support the professionals' view that there is little place in the criminal justice system for unpaid lay justices, and I have concerns about that, which I know that others share.
We want to raise standards and create opportunities for involvement, and we must do that, but by directing centrally we may be turning off some of the very people who bring professional standards, expertise and broad life experience who would enhance the volunteering benefit that the community would accrue. As one gains life experience, one is perhaps wearied by the filling out of forms, the evaluation of outcomes and the working within defined structures. We must retain space to be outside the box.
When I worked in the business world, I managed many staff on a substantial budget and I thoroughly enjoyed it. My last company medical, in 1998, showed that my blood pressure was 140/90—well within the range for a 52-year-old, as I was then. Interestingly, today it is 110/60. Why has it dropped in those six years? I am now doing a job that I volunteered for. When I get up in the morning, I decide pretty much what I do each day. There are more constraints on me now than there were during my previous 40 years as a political volunteer, but there are far fewer than there were in the world of business. The result is contentment—modest contentment, as my party is not in Government—and a lower blood pressure, despite another six years under my rather expanding belt.
That neatly encapsulates the objectives—assuming that one ever thought in such structured terms—of the great majority of Scotland's volunteers. It is hard to disagree with Margaret Curran, who wrote:
"In its early days volunteering was about the 'haves helping the have nots'";
however, we must not create an environment in which the haves discontinue to support the have nots. There are disturbing signs that the level of charity giving in areas of relative prosperity in Scotland is relatively low compared to the excellent giving in areas of relative deprivation. We must, therefore, be careful and realise that there are more things to learn.
The minister said that she has put £374 million into the voluntary sector. The information that I have is that £262 million has been given in direct grants to organisations. So, there is plenty of evidence of Government good faith on this subject, although there is a danger that that will distort the operation, as talk of money raises awkward issues for us all.
I conclude by going back to James VI, who in 1604, as I said in a previous debate on smoking, identified the fact that smoking could cause strokes and exacerbate problems in the brain. I very much welcome the awarding of the Queen's award for voluntary service to the Deveron stroke club—one of the many worthy awards that have been made. On a final note, the honours system perhaps focuses on financial contributions from political has-beens at the expense of rewarding the volunteer. It is time for change, minister.
14:58
