Paper 1

SCVO POLICY COMMITTEE

Wednesday 23rd September 2009

TeachersBuilding, Glasgow

Minutes of meeting held on Wednesday 3rd June 2009 at Atholl Palace Hotel, Pitlochry

Present:Alison Elliot (Convener), Helen Tyrrell (Vice-Convener), Andy Myles,

Caroline Lorimer, David Griffiths, Elizabeth Rowlett, Ella Simpson,

Gregor McNie, Ian McLaughlan, Julie Hogg, Kirsten Gooday, Lindsay

Hall, Margaret Murdoch, Niall Smith, Penny Brodie, Peter Kelly, Simon

Jaquet

Apologies:Alan Dickson, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Chris Robison, Deepak Gill, Eliane

Reid, FlorenceEdmond, James Jopling, John MacDonald, Kenneth

Simpson, Morna Wilson, Nancy Taylor, Gareth Allan, Tim Hencher

In Attendance:Martin Sime, John Ferguson, Lucy McTernan, Paul White, Stephen

Maxwell, Ruchir Shah, Jackie Petitqueux, Anna Ville Uriol

The Convener welcomed everyone to the annual residential meeting and initiated a round table introduction. Apologies were given, after which the Convener told the meeting that since the papers had been circulated, a number of issues had arisen which the Policy Committee might like to discuss and they would be added to the following day’s agenda.

Ruchir Shah gave a short introduction to the first Discussion paper “What does it mean tobe a voluntary organisation in Scotland today?” and the meeting broke into 3 groups. The Convener suggested that Helen Tyrrell, Liz Rowley and Simon Jaquet each join separate groups since their membership of the ‘State of the Sector’ sub-group could prove helpful to the discussions.

Feedback

David Griffiths reported back from Group 1. To begin with, the sector was extremely difficult to define and some organisations which considered themselves to be part of the sector were not considered as such by others. There were different dynamics within the sector,for example, many rural communities worked together regardless of the issue eg environment, transport, housing, while fewer urban organisations co-operated in this way. Sharing backroom services was considered a good idea but was not given high priority. Of more importance was the existence of strategic partnerships so that organisations could help each other (not in a financial way) and SCVO could have a role in promoting this. Regarding the various legal entities, it was felt that it was up to people/ /organisations to use whichever legal personality best suited their purpose.

Peter Kelly reported back from Group 2. As with Group 1, a key point had been the diversity of the sector. They also discussed the changed funding environment in depth and noted that the nature of funding had been changing over the past 15-20 years. As a result there could be more mergers, particularly between smaller organisations. Regarding the voluntary sector’s ‘brand’, there was agreement that it was being diluted and various reasons were given for this. Housing association committee members for example were volunteers but there were proposals that they could be paid. There was also a strong feeling that the sector was allowing itself to be defined by others instead of defining itself. What was not appreciated was that the main difference between ourselves and the public and private sectors was that we were still driven by particular values.

Helen Tyrrell reported back from Group 3. The group felt the sector was too diverse to define precisely but there were certain factors which were common to all including independence of the sector; volunteer led; collectivism; promotion of trust. The sector was judged by its actions rather than the values we espoused and it was not appreciated by others that we had a set of underpinning principles, including that we responded to need.

The Convener thanked everyone for their feedback and moved to Discussion Paper 2 ‘What could it mean to be a voluntary organisation in Scotland tomorrow?” Feedback from this paper would be given the following day and Ruchir Shah gave a short introduction.

Day Two

Feedback

Gareth Allan, Third Sector Division, Scottish Government, joined the meeting and apologies were received from Paul White.

The Convener welcomed everyone back to the second day’s meeting and requested feedback from Discussion Paper 2.

Liz Rowlett reported that her group had talked about the ethos and principles of the sector. They then covered a range of subjects including transferring assets to communities, whether or not SCVO was too close to government, and whether we should act as lobbying agents, service providers or both. We could challenge budget decisions but should seek to have our own resources, and we were still not fully engaged with other parts of civil society.

David Griffiths reported from Group 2. Their main question had been how the sector wanted to be seen as opposed to how we were perceived. We needed politicians to realise who we were and what we could give, but not be driven by others’ agendas. There should be greater strategic collaboration between organisations, and sustainability should be of high importance. As far as civil society was concerned, relationships with others should be explored further.

Kirsten Gooday reported from Group 3. It was felt that the sector was going down the road of mergers/collaborations and if this trend continued, they wondered if it would be a good idea to identify an organisation which could act as a ‘lead’ organisation. The political power of the sector was discussed and it was noted that sometimes partnership work went on ‘behind closed doors’ (eg on competitive tendering), but this kind of work should be more open. The suggestion of the sector fielding independent political candidates was raised for the simple reason that the sector was one of the few areas where people were still generally trusted. The bottom line was that the sector needed to invest in ourselves and be more self confident.

The Convener thanked the 3 raporteurs and a short discussion took place before the Convener moved to the next item on the agenda.

Discussion Paper 3 – ‘What should the voluntary sector do to fulfil its role today and tomorrow?’ Ruchir introduced 3 key areas given as background and added that again, how did the sector want to present itself? The Convener asked that each group bring back 3 points from their discussion and Lucy said they would be incorporated into SCVO’s pre-manifesto.

Feedback

Andy Myles reported that the group had discussed exploring new resources and independent funding for the sector, and their first point was that we should seek an endowed base. The second point covered new priorities and it was felt the sector should investigate alternatives to measuring returns by GDP. We should distance ourselves from the private sector which used GDP as a financial return whereas we wanted to measure the social returns. The third point was a reminder that the sector was member led and government at all levels should be reminded of this, as they seemed to think that only the ‘big’ players in the sector had an opinion on any given issue.

Ian McLaughlan reported that his group had also discussed new resources and more research was needed into potential sources of income. More big donors had appeared on the scene but the sector was still slightly suspicious of them. Gift Aid was not being utilised properly as only one-third of the sector took part and another third thought the admin costs made it less attractive and too bureaucratic. The group then talked about key relationships and though they were happy with the current relationship with national government, they thought work was needed re local government. The sector should also develop a relationship with faith groups, trade unions etc and relationships with the private sector could be renewed. The next discussion centred around climate change and the benefit of wind farms, and other renewables. There was a massive role for the sector and responsibility to help people most affected by climate change eg through flooding. We should be aware of the impact on the most vulnerable people (for example those with mental health problems and poorer people) and think about the social costs. The last point noted was that the sector itself should give more recognition to the common denominators of the sector as opposed to the different labels (children, disabilities, poverty etc).

Julie Hogg reported from the last group and three bullet points were as follows:

SCVO should facilitate discussion within the sector about positive ambitions for Scotland. This would give us the foundation on which to base a campaign message. The campaign had to have a clear and practical message that everyone could understand and buy into. SCVO should put together a ‘menu’ of how people could become involved. This would come out of the discussion/consultation recommended in point 1. Finally, SCVO needed to lead on research into the sector, analyse the infrastructure and identify good practice.

The Convener thanked everyone for their input and summed up. There was general agreement around the table that the sector should focus on who we were, what we did, and working with partners. She reiterated the resolution which had been made the previous day that we should set outcomes for ourselves and not have them set for us.

The formal meeting followed.

Business Meeting – Thursday 4th June 2009

AthollPalace, Pitlochry

  1. Minutes of the previous meeting of 18th March

Approved with the following amendment: Caroline Lorimer was co-opted as a grassroots member and Peter Kelly was co-opted to cover European issues.

  1. Matters arising

Andy Myles asked about the State of the Sector report and the suggestion from the previous Policy Committee meeting that it be discussed at this away-day. Lucy replied that the subject had been overtaken by more important issues and we had decided instead to do a pre-election mini manifesto within which the 10 year anniversary would be mentioned.

  1. Governance Review

The Convener informed the meeting that the subject of governance had been discussed by the Management Board at its May meeting. It had been decided that no changes would be made at this time but a paper detailing the practice of co-option would be presented to this meeting. Martin said that he had checked the SCVO Memorandum and Articles and a copy of the current conditions had been copied into the accompanying paper. A short discussion ensued and David Griffiths asked that a further sentence be added to the effect that at the end of a co-option period, the co-optee had to stand down or stand for election and this was agreed. The timetable for co-options was discussed and also agreed. The meeting then discussed the issues of whether co-opted members should remain on the Policy Committee if they moved to a different organisation; and whether they should have the same rights as elected members. After a full debate the Convener held the following vote:

Should co-opted members share the same status and rights as elected members?

Yes

Should co-opted members resign if they move out of their field of interest?

Yes

  1. Scottish Government consultation – Charity Law Amendments

Guiding Principles

After an introduction by Ruchir, the Convener dealt with the guiding principles one by one. The first guiding principle of ensuring the minimum regulation consistent with accountability and transparency was agreed. The second principle of harmonisation across different jurisdictions raised some debate as the sector’s line for the Calman Commission had been to keep a strong Scottish ‘brand’, although it was acknowledged that harmonisation would be easier on small Scottish charities. The final decision however was to say no to harmonisation. The third principle of minimising risk to the sector was judged not to be a guiding principle so was omitted. The fourth principle of the independence of the sector from state intervention again triggered further discussion but it was eventually agreed that this did not have to be a guiding principle on its own and should be added to the first principle.

The last principle of alignment of accounting regulations across different ‘corporate’ charity forms was rejected since it was mainly covered in the first point.

Therefore:

  • First principle – agreed
  • Second principle – rejected
  • Third principle – omitted
  • Fourth principle – Add to first principle
  • Fifth principle – rejected as already covered in the first principle

Charity Trustees and Governance

Three points had been highlighted.

The first point was that the Scottish Government planned to allow charities to provide trustee indemnity insurance and while we broadly supported the move, it was agreed that concern should be raised because there had been no consultation on this issue.

The second point covered the proposed powers of OSCR to appoint additional charity trustees in certain specific situations and the meeting agreed that such appointments should be temporary.

The third point was the proposal to allow charities to add new provisions to their constitutions unrelated to existing provisions and it was agreed that this would not be challenged

Public Benefit Reporting

Martin opened the discussion by reporting that the way in which the Scottish Government consultation paper proposed that charities should identify the public benefit provided by them in their annual accounts, made it seem like an extra requirement, but in actual fact charities already reported on this in their own ways. David Griffiths however, thought that there was a subtle change in that charities would be required not just to say what their objectives were but to show how they had been achieved. The meeting agreed that they did not know what OSCR’s intentions were but although it was good practice to include the information in annual reports, there should not be any increased burden on the sector.

Charity Accounts Thresholds

The threshold in England and Wales had recently risen substantially but OSCR was recommending that the thresholds in Scotland remain the same. Various options were considered and as the current system was burdensome for small charities, it was felt that OSCR should consider a change in line with the English and Welsh system. It was also recommended that the system be more flexible for charities which might exceed the £100,000 threshold because of a one-off donation, eg a legacy.

  1. Volunteering, Citizenship and Immigration Bill

Ruchir introduced the paper and reminded the meeting that the main question was whether or not SCVO should take a public position on the Home Office proposals to link voluntary work with a speeding up of the citizenship process. A discussion took place and various concerns were raised: volunteering could not be compulsory and citizenship should not be about volunteering; some immigrants would be unable to volunteer because of cultural issues; it would compromise the values and ethos of the sector; there was concern about local authority involvement; it was a bad law so should be automatically opposed. Of the 3 options given it was decided to combine points 2 and 3 by expressing support for volunteering but opposition for voluntary activity being used as a condition for speeding up citizenship.

  1. Green Agenda Update

Jackie Petitqueux highlighted some points from the paper after which the Convener addressed some of the questions raised. It was agreed that SCVO should become a member of SCCS (Stop Climate Chaos Scotland) and the Convener asked about SCVO representation on the Third Sector Task Force. It was noted that while SCCS was a genuine voice, the Task Force was run by Defra (Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and DECC (Dept of Energy & Climate Change). Further discussion took place and it was agreed that while SCVO was not attempting to engage in depth on this subject as that was better left to the experts, they would be happy to act as a facilitator in setting up a Green Policy Network.

  1. General Updates

The updates were for noting only but under #4 (National Conversation), Ruchir reminded the meeting that the Calman Commission would be reporting back on Monday 15th June and he wished to confirm that no further input was required.

The meeting agreed that Lucy, Ruchir and Stephen would study the Calman Report when it was available and decide if a response was required.

  1. AOB

Ministerial Roundtable

Lucy tabled papers concerned with the Ministerial Roundtable meeting on Resilience which had been held on 14th April 2009 and gave a short summary of the main issues identified. A further meeting would be taking place the following Tuesday 9th June at which the First Minister would be present. It was noted as a matter of some concern that the government had issued invitations to attend to individuals in specific organisations instead of asking for representation from the sector. This was discussed and it was agreed that if SCVO was supposed to be considered as a social partner then we should have been contacted. Gareth Allan assured the meeting that the Scottish Government did consider the sector as a partner and for this reason had asked SCVO to chair the meeting.