It has been a mark of this Parliament that, since its establishment, it has sought to build an understanding of the causes and consequences of male violence against women. I believe that a consensus has been created across the chamber about the significance of the issue for the health and wellbeing of far too many women and children in our communities.
I recognise the significance of that consensus, but I believe that we owe it to our shared commitment to tackle violence against women not to settle for a cosy coming together. Rather, we should see the debate as an opportunity not only to acknowledge that but to reflect on a number of critical issues that need to be addressed.
On Monday, we marked St Andrew's day. For some, it was a day to acknowledge our Scottishness, for a bit of flag waving and perhaps for some sentimentality. I was privileged to hear Alastair McIntosh—a Quaker, author and fellow of the centre for human ecology—on Radio 4, providing a fascinating insight into and a challenging view of our patron saint. I will quote, or rather abridge, his words. He said: "Today is the day of Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland, but for some people—men and children, but I am thinking especially of women—it won't be a happy day to wake up to. It will be a day of nursing last night's wounds. In many ways, domestic violence is the most confusing type of assault, because it comes from those who are supposed to love you. We learn of St Andrew in the Acts of Andrew. These tell how he became the spiritual teacher of Maximilla, wife of the Roman proconsul, Aegeates. She confided how, every night, her husband came home drunk and forced himself on her. Andrew—whose name means 'manliness'—encouraged her to treat this with zero tolerance. Aegeates had him flogged, specially tied to an X-shaped cross to prolong the agony, and crucified at Patras. Here, domestic violence links to the ugliness of empire and strikes out far beyond the home. It profoundly distorts a person's sense of what is normal and acceptable. Andrew stood by Maximilla as she broke that spell of violence. May his gentle manliness be our inspiration. Let us today remember Andrew—patron saint of a woman's right to say no."
That wonderful contribution reflects a powerful message about the long existence of male violence, but it also gives us hope that male violence is not inevitable. Perhaps, in Andrew, we see a more optimistic view of what manliness might be. In our various debates about what a future Scotland might look like, we are determined to ensure that, whatever the constitutional arrangements, we must seek to create in our communities and our country a place where women and children are safe, where rape and abuse of women through trafficking and prostitution are tackled and women are protected, where perpetrators are challenged not tolerated and where our young people are taught to grow up together in safe and respectful relationships.
I will highlight a number of areas of concern that I would like the minister to address, given our shared commitment to protection, provision and prevention.
Our amendment notes that we are still awaiting a report on the implementation of single outcome agreements, despite a commitment that that would be available in September. If we cannot analyse what is happening with single outcome agreements in relation to violence against women, how can their effectiveness be assessed, how can confidence be given to those who were fearful of the consequences of the end of ring fencing for consistency of provision, and how can there be certainty that any problems with the agreements will be addressed?
The minister will be aware that I have fought hard to get John Swinney to agree not to accept single outcome agreements without evidence of an equality impact assessment having been carried out. I believe that that approach would respond to the concerns that were highlighted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in its briefing.
The minister will also be aware of the analysis of single outcome agreements that was done by Scottish Women's Aid. That must ring alarm bells about the safety of women in our communities.
Women's Aid tells us that its analysis of single outcome agreements raises questions about whether the protection of women and children from violence is one of the highest priorities across Scotland. It points out that only 11 single outcome agreements state that addressing violence against women locally is a priority; that only 10 single outcome agreements include a specific reference to children affected by domestic abuse; and that only five single outcome agreements make reference to violence against women in relation to gender equality.
I am sure that the minister will agree that that is a troubling trend for those who are committed to consistency of understanding and provision across Scotland.
Linked to that are the concerns that have been highlighted to me that the work on violence against women is being diluted and increasingly subsumed into a more generalised community safety role. I am all for putting energy into addressing disorder and antisocial behaviour, but we all know that a fundamental of our understanding of violence against women and domestic abuse is that the crime needs to be named so that it can be tackled. It is essential to maintain a sharp focus on the distinctive nature of male violence and its consequences.
With regard to the protection of women and children, we must welcome the continued focus on multi-agency working, in which education, police, housing, social work and health all play a role in supporting women and minimising the impact on children. However, it is the justice system that is central in protecting women. We should never forget the horrific statistics on the murder of women, which show that women are most at risk from a partner or ex-partner and most vulnerable at the point of their decision to leave.
I commend Rhoda Grant's proposed members' bill, which will give women increased support and access to legal support; I believe that she will say more about that today. I welcome the Tories' amendment, which acknowledges the role of domestic abuse courts and repeats Labour's call for Kenny MacAskill to ensure that such courts are rolled out beyond Glasgow. It will be essential that the courts, in whatever form they are developed, allow for partnership working and effective risk assessment. That approach is currently provided in Glasgow through the advice, support, safety and information services together—ASSIST—project.
We need to explore the availability of perpetrator programmes, and, connected to that, programmes for the families of perpetrators. Women's organisations resisted the push for pre-court diversion for men who had committed domestic abuse offences in the past, as women believed that the crime should be recognised as precisely that: a crime.
Today, we need to take heed of what women's organisations are saying about the plans to end sentences of six months or fewer. We need to deter men by marking domestic abuse as a significant offence. There is no doubt that for some families, a sentence—even if it is for less than six months—can afford not only respite but, more critically, enough space for a woman to make a life-changing decision, and to get out and be supported to do so.
I raised that issue with the First Minister at First Minister's questions last week, and he replied that serious offences should attract serious sentences. I seek clarification on that. Does that mean that domestic abuse offences would be exempt from the presumption against sentences of six months or fewer, or that all domestic abuse offences would attract sentences of more than six months? How would such approaches be enforced?
Christine Grahame: Surely, in certain cases, the term "domestic abuse" is the wrong one to use. The offence is purely and simply a criminal assault, and should be dealt with in the courts—whether it is the sheriff court or the High Court—as just that: a criminal offence.
Johann Lamont: In the 10 years that we have been debating the issue, we have argued precisely the opposite. We have argued that we need to understand domestic abuse and violence against women in the context of the power of men over women in the home and in the community.
What action has the minister taken, and what work has been carried out by the equality unit, to ensure that that dimension of the justice proposals is taken seriously? Women's organisations say what they are saying because of their experience of working with women. That is why our amendment asks for a statement on how, across Government, policies are tested against their impact on those vulnerable women and children.
It must be a concern to us all—indeed, the minister referred to it—that the incidence of domestic abuse continues to rise. I acknowledge that that is due, at least in part, to more confidence among women and more rigour by the police. However, I ask the minister to reflect again—and I say this gently—on one explanation that he gave on television. He suggested that the rise in incidents was in part because we live in a time of economic recession.
We know that male violence is not caused, or excused, by poverty, and that male perpetrators are no respecters of class or income. I seek an assurance from the minister that he does not seek to perpetuate such a distorting view of where the problem manifests itself and what causes it.
I do not doubt the desire of members on all sides of the chamber to address violence against women, or their heartfelt wish to see women and children safe—and we must welcome anything that recognises the particular impact on children. However, we have a responsibility to bring together what we say and what we do. Caring is not enough, and will not in itself protect one woman, give one child back their childhood or open the eyes of one young man to a life of respect, not violence. Not one step on the road to greater equality was ever made by accident.
We need aspiration that is delivered locally bit by bit, wherever need is, throughout Scotland. The aspiration to deliver through the practicalities of action is laid out for all of us each week in the ASSIST bulletin. The reality of violence against women and the statistics may overwhelm us, but the results of the project give us great hope.
The Scottish Government must address the concerns and not dismiss them. If the current
processes to secure protection, provision and prevention are examined and found to be wanting, they must be changed. The Scottish Government and the minister would have our support if that happened. That would be a legacy of listening and responding of which we could all be proud.
I move amendment S3M-5307.2, to insert at end:
"and regrets that a report on the implementation of the first round of single outcome agreements has not yet been published, given the concerns of Scottish Women's Aid about the level of provision across Scotland; believes that the strategy of protection, provision and prevention remains central to the tackling of violence against women, and agrees that the Scottish Government should produce a joint statement from across its directorates to ensure that all its key policies are tested against their impact on women facing violence."
2.6.10
Speech on Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill 26th. November 2009
My comments reflect the concerns of many of my constituents about some aspects of the bill. I regret that, this morning, the cabinet secretary seemed simply to dismiss those concerns rather than take them seriously.
Before I get to the substance of my speech, I will flag up a few issues that I trust will be revisited at stage 2. They include the issues that Sandra White flagged up in relation to trafficked women; prostitution and men who abuse women and prostitute them; and lap dancing. A further question that I hope we will revisit is how we make a connection between communities that suffer under the cosh of serious organised crime and the money that is secured as a consequence of that under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. There should be a direct link, with funding going back to the communities that have suffered the most.
On the broader debate, it seems that nothing is easy. It is unhelpful to try, as I think Dr McKee rather complacently did, to create the impression that somehow only those who are wilfully stupid wish to ignore the policy that the Scottish Government is taking forward. It is most unfortunate to demonise those in our communities who are demanding action and those of us who wish to highlight how victims often feel let down by the system. To do that is to deny a voice to those who, because of their day-to-day experience, feel that the justice system is unfair, irrational and out of touch with the way in which they have to live their lives.
Yes, we have to try to understand what causes people to commit offences, but we also have to stop infantilising people who choose to terrorise their partners, their families and their neighbours. We owe it to the young men who carry a knife, as much as to their potential victims, to do everything in our power to stop them doing that. I have worked with young men who, in later life, ended up either in prison on a murder charge or dead. If we take steps to address the needs of such young men as well as those of their victims, we will be doing something important.
Robert Brown: I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. The issue is what makes the difference. What is the tough sentence that turns such people around? That is the nub of the debate, which some people on my side of the chamber would say the Labour Party has not engaged with as it might.
Johann Lamont: I recognise that, but I do not think that there is recognition on the other side of the importance of deterring young people who are outside the core group that carry knives, who see that nothing happens to those people and who then carry knives themselves. We owe it to those young people to say, "This is serious," in the same way that we punish people who drink drive to prevent others from doing that.
I am always struck by the degree to which people who come to me to ask for help because of disorder, crime and violence in their communities do so not simply because they want us to put people in jail and throw away the key but out of desperation about their circumstances. It is unjust and contemptuous to sneer at those who want tougher action on knife crime because of their direct experience of those who use violence to silence people, harm them and intimidate them to the point where they phone the police in a whisper. We owe it to those people to empower rather than disempower them and to listen to them. In that context, I urge the minister to reflect further on the action that he is taking and to test it against people's need to have certainty that their communities will not be more dangerous and that the measures will not put them at further risk.
The scrapping of six-month sentences raises a number of issues. At First Minister's question time, I highlighted the implication of the policy for the victims of domestic abuse and the fears of many people that it might increase risk. Following the First Minister's response, I seek clarification on what the Scottish Government's policy actually is. The First Minister said that serious offences should attract longer sentences. Is it the Government's view that all domestic abuse cases that currently attract sentences of less than six months should attract longer sentences? If that is the case, how would that be enforced?
Kenny MacAskill: Will the member give way?
Johann Lamont: I am sorry, but I have only a minute left—the minister can answer the point when he sums up. Would that policy apply to other serious offences?
There is an issue around resources. It is not enough simply to say that the resources are available. We could end up with an experiment with no safety net, the costs of which will be borne by individuals and communities. The obvious fear is not just that there could be an increase in offending behaviour, but that there could be an increased lack of confidence in the justice system's ability to serve people's needs.
At the heart of the matter there is a puzzle. It is illogical to say that the only way to encourage community sentences is to end short sentences now—it could be done the other way round. It is also illogical to say that people can be rehabilitated in their communities working with them only five or 10 hours a week, yet absolutely nothing can be done with them over six months when they are in prison. I have never understood the logic in assuming that the Scottish Prison Service has no responsibility towards those who are in prison serving shorter sentences. I would have more confidence in the minister if we were not hearing that Sacro, Apex Scotland and other organisations that work with prisoners who come out of prison are being told that their funding is being cut.
In those circumstances, the lack of confidence in our communities must be addressed, not dismissed.
Before I get to the substance of my speech, I will flag up a few issues that I trust will be revisited at stage 2. They include the issues that Sandra White flagged up in relation to trafficked women; prostitution and men who abuse women and prostitute them; and lap dancing. A further question that I hope we will revisit is how we make a connection between communities that suffer under the cosh of serious organised crime and the money that is secured as a consequence of that under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. There should be a direct link, with funding going back to the communities that have suffered the most.
On the broader debate, it seems that nothing is easy. It is unhelpful to try, as I think Dr McKee rather complacently did, to create the impression that somehow only those who are wilfully stupid wish to ignore the policy that the Scottish Government is taking forward. It is most unfortunate to demonise those in our communities who are demanding action and those of us who wish to highlight how victims often feel let down by the system. To do that is to deny a voice to those who, because of their day-to-day experience, feel that the justice system is unfair, irrational and out of touch with the way in which they have to live their lives.
Yes, we have to try to understand what causes people to commit offences, but we also have to stop infantilising people who choose to terrorise their partners, their families and their neighbours. We owe it to the young men who carry a knife, as much as to their potential victims, to do everything in our power to stop them doing that. I have worked with young men who, in later life, ended up either in prison on a murder charge or dead. If we take steps to address the needs of such young men as well as those of their victims, we will be doing something important.
Robert Brown: I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. The issue is what makes the difference. What is the tough sentence that turns such people around? That is the nub of the debate, which some people on my side of the chamber would say the Labour Party has not engaged with as it might.
Johann Lamont: I recognise that, but I do not think that there is recognition on the other side of the importance of deterring young people who are outside the core group that carry knives, who see that nothing happens to those people and who then carry knives themselves. We owe it to those young people to say, "This is serious," in the same way that we punish people who drink drive to prevent others from doing that.
I am always struck by the degree to which people who come to me to ask for help because of disorder, crime and violence in their communities do so not simply because they want us to put people in jail and throw away the key but out of desperation about their circumstances. It is unjust and contemptuous to sneer at those who want tougher action on knife crime because of their direct experience of those who use violence to silence people, harm them and intimidate them to the point where they phone the police in a whisper. We owe it to those people to empower rather than disempower them and to listen to them. In that context, I urge the minister to reflect further on the action that he is taking and to test it against people's need to have certainty that their communities will not be more dangerous and that the measures will not put them at further risk.
The scrapping of six-month sentences raises a number of issues. At First Minister's question time, I highlighted the implication of the policy for the victims of domestic abuse and the fears of many people that it might increase risk. Following the First Minister's response, I seek clarification on what the Scottish Government's policy actually is. The First Minister said that serious offences should attract longer sentences. Is it the Government's view that all domestic abuse cases that currently attract sentences of less than six months should attract longer sentences? If that is the case, how would that be enforced?
Kenny MacAskill: Will the member give way?
Johann Lamont: I am sorry, but I have only a minute left—the minister can answer the point when he sums up. Would that policy apply to other serious offences?
There is an issue around resources. It is not enough simply to say that the resources are available. We could end up with an experiment with no safety net, the costs of which will be borne by individuals and communities. The obvious fear is not just that there could be an increase in offending behaviour, but that there could be an increased lack of confidence in the justice system's ability to serve people's needs.
At the heart of the matter there is a puzzle. It is illogical to say that the only way to encourage community sentences is to end short sentences now—it could be done the other way round. It is also illogical to say that people can be rehabilitated in their communities working with them only five or 10 hours a week, yet absolutely nothing can be done with them over six months when they are in prison. I have never understood the logic in assuming that the Scottish Prison Service has no responsibility towards those who are in prison serving shorter sentences. I would have more confidence in the minister if we were not hearing that Sacro, Apex Scotland and other organisations that work with prisoners who come out of prison are being told that their funding is being cut.
In those circumstances, the lack of confidence in our communities must be addressed, not dismissed.
Speech on Education (Scottish History) 25th. November 2009
I am happy to participate in this debate. I declare an interest as a former history teacher and, indeed, as someone who was taught Scottish history in a Glasgow school 40 years ago. This subject is not new. I am a bit despondent at the way in which some of the minister's comments were largely an opportunity to hook on to the issue of the homecoming. All who love history should resist the temptation to create a year-zero approach to what has been and is being done in this field.
More generally, there are loads of opportunities to have an interesting discussion about the role of history in schools, but people want us to wrestle with big issues in, for example, education and the care system. I am concerned that the Scottish Government has chosen this debate, which feels, notwithstanding the quality of the speeches, a bit like a stocking filler. There is a danger that what we see now in this Parliament is Executive action with little opportunity for scrutiny, and this place simply being a debating chamber and nothing more.
It has always been the case that, in teaching history, people have wrestled with the balance between history at the level of local communities, at the Scottish level, and far beyond, to give young people an international dimension. That issue is nothing new. It is important that our young people understand how some of the broader movements across the world were expressed in Scotland.
On the question that Margo MacDonald raised, I do not think that we teach our young people something as crude as whether the empire was good or bad; we develop in them an understanding and a capacity to think for themselves, with enough information—which in the past would not have been given to them—so that they can come to a judgment. If our history is about anything, it is about developing the minds of our young people in that regard. I believe that we should have described this debate as being not about Scotland and its history, as if it were one entity, but about the people of Scotland and their history, and an understanding of the diversity of experience, culture and values in Scotland and how they have related to the wider world.
We know that some in the Scottish National Party are keen to recast the political debate as being between us and them; between Scotland and England in the past and, perhaps a little more subtly, now between Scotland and London or the rest of the United Kingdom. Some in the SNP seek to capture the language of oppression and freedom for now and our past in describing the relationship with the rest of the UK. That is a political debate, which will be reflected in our understanding of history. I believe that the debate is about a partnership with the rest of the UK, but others believe that it is about oppression and freedom. That is a legitimate debate for us to have, but we must be careful about the way in which we present the priorities for teaching in history. There are fundamental differences.
I was concerned about the language that the minister used when she talked about "reclaiming our history". If young people are reclaiming their history, who has taken it from them? Young people will always take the opportunities that are provided in school to learn, test and understand. The idea that our culture has been silenced in some way resonates with the SNP's view of the relationship with the rest of the UK, but few other people recognise that view.
Margo MacDonald: I have too much respect for the member to disagree with a great deal of what she says, but I tried to make the point in my earlier intervention that there will always be at least two views of historical events. For example, some children were taught in Scottish schools—I do not know whether they still are—that Winston Churchill was a great war leader and that we should remember that that was his contribution; other children were taught that he turned the guns on the miners at Tonypandy. Both views were correct, but both indicated a bias, or perhaps not a bias—
The Deputy Presiding Officer: This is going on just a bit too long.
Johann Lamont: I accept what the member says. My point is that history teaching at its most liberating encourages people to scrutinise for bias and to test it against other information that they are given. We must recognise the importance of taking a rounded view of history and understanding how change happens and why. For example, there are those in the Parliament, particularly in the SNP, who emphasise that this Parliament is a reconvened Parliament, but the interesting question for me is why this place, its elected members, its purpose and its priorities are so different from the Parliament that joined the union in 1707. This Parliament's story is one of a journey of radicalism, of change and of movements in which people recognised that things in the past were unacceptable. The fight for suffrage was part of that journey and it is, in my view, a far more interesting issue—
Fiona Hyslop: Will the member give way?
Johann Lamont: Let me make this point.
We need to seek to understand the movements that transformed the lives of ordinary people and that tackled injustice and exploitation within our communities—some of which was perpetrated by Scot upon Scot. I was taught about the clearances. If some who were involved in making decisions about the year of homecoming had a better understanding of the clearances, they would not have put the clan chief gathering at the centre of a celebration of the people of Scotland in the modern age.
For me, the big issue is how we make history not just about the big history. Too many people in the SNP want to talk about the big history—I recognise that Christina McKelvie identified individuals and movements below that—but, in my view, the big argument that we need to wrestle with in history is understanding the individual, the community and the local, and how events there paralleled with what happened in other parts of the world. History should be a liberating subject rather than being about them and us or oppression versus freedom.
Fiona Hyslop: On the member's point about the different views of particular events in history, one aspect of the online resource is interviews with history professors who take different perspectives on the same period in history. That will help to develop skills for analysis and debate and to get people to make up their own mind. Does she welcome that part of the online resource?
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): You must wind up, Ms Lamont.
Johann Lamont: I have not not welcomed anything that encourages young people to think about all of their history. My point is that a separate element to the debate is the overlaying of a template or view of Scotland's relationship with the rest of the world and of Scotland as one entity. Our job is to provide the resources and teachers to ensure that young people are given the capacity to think for themselves and to come to their view of how our history—the history of all the people of Scotland—has shaped our priorities and choices for the future.
More generally, there are loads of opportunities to have an interesting discussion about the role of history in schools, but people want us to wrestle with big issues in, for example, education and the care system. I am concerned that the Scottish Government has chosen this debate, which feels, notwithstanding the quality of the speeches, a bit like a stocking filler. There is a danger that what we see now in this Parliament is Executive action with little opportunity for scrutiny, and this place simply being a debating chamber and nothing more.
It has always been the case that, in teaching history, people have wrestled with the balance between history at the level of local communities, at the Scottish level, and far beyond, to give young people an international dimension. That issue is nothing new. It is important that our young people understand how some of the broader movements across the world were expressed in Scotland.
On the question that Margo MacDonald raised, I do not think that we teach our young people something as crude as whether the empire was good or bad; we develop in them an understanding and a capacity to think for themselves, with enough information—which in the past would not have been given to them—so that they can come to a judgment. If our history is about anything, it is about developing the minds of our young people in that regard. I believe that we should have described this debate as being not about Scotland and its history, as if it were one entity, but about the people of Scotland and their history, and an understanding of the diversity of experience, culture and values in Scotland and how they have related to the wider world.
We know that some in the Scottish National Party are keen to recast the political debate as being between us and them; between Scotland and England in the past and, perhaps a little more subtly, now between Scotland and London or the rest of the United Kingdom. Some in the SNP seek to capture the language of oppression and freedom for now and our past in describing the relationship with the rest of the UK. That is a political debate, which will be reflected in our understanding of history. I believe that the debate is about a partnership with the rest of the UK, but others believe that it is about oppression and freedom. That is a legitimate debate for us to have, but we must be careful about the way in which we present the priorities for teaching in history. There are fundamental differences.
I was concerned about the language that the minister used when she talked about "reclaiming our history". If young people are reclaiming their history, who has taken it from them? Young people will always take the opportunities that are provided in school to learn, test and understand. The idea that our culture has been silenced in some way resonates with the SNP's view of the relationship with the rest of the UK, but few other people recognise that view.
Margo MacDonald: I have too much respect for the member to disagree with a great deal of what she says, but I tried to make the point in my earlier intervention that there will always be at least two views of historical events. For example, some children were taught in Scottish schools—I do not know whether they still are—that Winston Churchill was a great war leader and that we should remember that that was his contribution; other children were taught that he turned the guns on the miners at Tonypandy. Both views were correct, but both indicated a bias, or perhaps not a bias—
The Deputy Presiding Officer: This is going on just a bit too long.
Johann Lamont: I accept what the member says. My point is that history teaching at its most liberating encourages people to scrutinise for bias and to test it against other information that they are given. We must recognise the importance of taking a rounded view of history and understanding how change happens and why. For example, there are those in the Parliament, particularly in the SNP, who emphasise that this Parliament is a reconvened Parliament, but the interesting question for me is why this place, its elected members, its purpose and its priorities are so different from the Parliament that joined the union in 1707. This Parliament's story is one of a journey of radicalism, of change and of movements in which people recognised that things in the past were unacceptable. The fight for suffrage was part of that journey and it is, in my view, a far more interesting issue—
Fiona Hyslop: Will the member give way?
Johann Lamont: Let me make this point.
We need to seek to understand the movements that transformed the lives of ordinary people and that tackled injustice and exploitation within our communities—some of which was perpetrated by Scot upon Scot. I was taught about the clearances. If some who were involved in making decisions about the year of homecoming had a better understanding of the clearances, they would not have put the clan chief gathering at the centre of a celebration of the people of Scotland in the modern age.
For me, the big issue is how we make history not just about the big history. Too many people in the SNP want to talk about the big history—I recognise that Christina McKelvie identified individuals and movements below that—but, in my view, the big argument that we need to wrestle with in history is understanding the individual, the community and the local, and how events there paralleled with what happened in other parts of the world. History should be a liberating subject rather than being about them and us or oppression versus freedom.
Fiona Hyslop: On the member's point about the different views of particular events in history, one aspect of the online resource is interviews with history professors who take different perspectives on the same period in history. That will help to develop skills for analysis and debate and to get people to make up their own mind. Does she welcome that part of the online resource?
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): You must wind up, Ms Lamont.
Johann Lamont: I have not not welcomed anything that encourages young people to think about all of their history. My point is that a separate element to the debate is the overlaying of a template or view of Scotland's relationship with the rest of the world and of Scotland as one entity. Our job is to provide the resources and teachers to ensure that young people are given the capacity to think for themselves and to come to their view of how our history—the history of all the people of Scotland—has shaped our priorities and choices for the future.
8.11.09
Supporting Families -Scottish Parliament speech 5th. November 2009
This is an interesting and important debate.
The central issue for all our children is their entitlement to live in safety and security in a loving home, and to be nurtured.
It is not just in poor families that children are denied those things.
I would be concerned by any implication that poverty means that children are denied a healthy and happy upbringing. In my constituency, there are families who, despite their financial circumstances, could teach us all a lesson about how to parent.
As a parent, I often have grave anxieties about my capacity to find a safe place to rear my children.
I am concerned at the implication that the issue is one for "them out there" and not for all of us as a society. In that context, a financial incentive to marry is entirely irrelevant.
The issue that is of concern is the extent to which we value children and families.
Elizabeth Smith talked about Iain Duncan Smith's Damascene conversion in Easterhouse.
He may have wished to reflect on the issue a little earlier, in the 1980s, when people were telling him what was happening in communities throughout Scotland and beyond.
It is not enough to create the impression that poverty is a plague in which no political decisions have been made. People live in difficulty because of political decisions—we should reflect on that.
The motion
"regrets that one in four children"
lives in a family in which there is a lone parent.
First, there are parents who are widowed who actively choose to spend the rest of their lives bringing up and focusing on their children.
The implication that that is the wrong choice is cause for concern.
Equally, for some people it is a courageous decision to leave a marriage to protect their children, especially given the financial implications for women of making that choice.
There is a dichotomy at the heart of the issue.
When we talk about domestic abuse, how often do we hear the question, "Why doesn't she leave?"
However, when she leaves, it is implied that she is creating problems for her children.
One of the problems for lone parents is not the fact of lone parenthood in itself but the way in which we support them financially and give them economic opportunity.
When I was a teacher, there were a number of occasions on which youngsters were disturbed by the periodic reappearance of their father, who caused mayhem in their homes.
One young boy could not, when his father was at home, sleep for fear of what would happen to his mother and could not, as a result, learn the next day.
The Tories ought to move away from the glib suggestion that lone parenthood in itself is the problem.
If we wish to support families, we need to address how inequality and disadvantage are experienced, and how we can create economic opportunities, safe communities and safe families to allow people to thrive.
Yesterday we got information on a skills strategy, which did not reflect that
The enterprise strategy contains no responsibility for place or people and does not address the inequality that disproportionately leaves women as carers in low-paid jobs, with no recognition of their needs.
We need an education system that talks about more than buildings and class sizes, and which recognises that some of our children cannot even access education because of what is happening in their wider life.
We need to understand the particular pressures on different kinds of families, such as the families of disabled children.
I regret that the Scottish Government did not step up to the mark in addressing the transformational change that is required to support those families and which would allow those children and their siblings to achieve their potential.
On kinship care, there is an issue with the benefits system, but the Scottish Government has a responsibility to address the huge diversity between what is offered to kinship carers in different parts of the country.
It has to recognise that the issue is as much about children's rights as anything else.
The SNP Government needs to recognise the vulnerability of funding to the voluntary sector, which will have a consequence for families.
There ought to be no sacred cows—nothing should be off-limits.
There should, rather, be proper reflection on what is happening, in order that our families can be protected.
The central issue for all our children is their entitlement to live in safety and security in a loving home, and to be nurtured.
It is not just in poor families that children are denied those things.
I would be concerned by any implication that poverty means that children are denied a healthy and happy upbringing. In my constituency, there are families who, despite their financial circumstances, could teach us all a lesson about how to parent.
As a parent, I often have grave anxieties about my capacity to find a safe place to rear my children.
I am concerned at the implication that the issue is one for "them out there" and not for all of us as a society. In that context, a financial incentive to marry is entirely irrelevant.
The issue that is of concern is the extent to which we value children and families.
Elizabeth Smith talked about Iain Duncan Smith's Damascene conversion in Easterhouse.
He may have wished to reflect on the issue a little earlier, in the 1980s, when people were telling him what was happening in communities throughout Scotland and beyond.
It is not enough to create the impression that poverty is a plague in which no political decisions have been made. People live in difficulty because of political decisions—we should reflect on that.
The motion
"regrets that one in four children"
lives in a family in which there is a lone parent.
First, there are parents who are widowed who actively choose to spend the rest of their lives bringing up and focusing on their children.
The implication that that is the wrong choice is cause for concern.
Equally, for some people it is a courageous decision to leave a marriage to protect their children, especially given the financial implications for women of making that choice.
There is a dichotomy at the heart of the issue.
When we talk about domestic abuse, how often do we hear the question, "Why doesn't she leave?"
However, when she leaves, it is implied that she is creating problems for her children.
One of the problems for lone parents is not the fact of lone parenthood in itself but the way in which we support them financially and give them economic opportunity.
When I was a teacher, there were a number of occasions on which youngsters were disturbed by the periodic reappearance of their father, who caused mayhem in their homes.
One young boy could not, when his father was at home, sleep for fear of what would happen to his mother and could not, as a result, learn the next day.
The Tories ought to move away from the glib suggestion that lone parenthood in itself is the problem.
If we wish to support families, we need to address how inequality and disadvantage are experienced, and how we can create economic opportunities, safe communities and safe families to allow people to thrive.
Yesterday we got information on a skills strategy, which did not reflect that
The enterprise strategy contains no responsibility for place or people and does not address the inequality that disproportionately leaves women as carers in low-paid jobs, with no recognition of their needs.
We need an education system that talks about more than buildings and class sizes, and which recognises that some of our children cannot even access education because of what is happening in their wider life.
We need to understand the particular pressures on different kinds of families, such as the families of disabled children.
I regret that the Scottish Government did not step up to the mark in addressing the transformational change that is required to support those families and which would allow those children and their siblings to achieve their potential.
On kinship care, there is an issue with the benefits system, but the Scottish Government has a responsibility to address the huge diversity between what is offered to kinship carers in different parts of the country.
It has to recognise that the issue is as much about children's rights as anything else.
The SNP Government needs to recognise the vulnerability of funding to the voluntary sector, which will have a consequence for families.
There ought to be no sacred cows—nothing should be off-limits.
There should, rather, be proper reflection on what is happening, in order that our families can be protected.
Elderly Care - Scottish Parliament speech 28th. October 2009
I welcome the minister's contribution on this important issue.
I also pay tribute to my colleague Irene Oldfather, who has, along with the cross-party group on older people, age and ageing, driven a lot of the work on the issue. Unfortunately, because of to her own caring responsibilities, she is unable to contribute today.
In debating services for older people, we must recognise that many older people are active and positive contributors, even though—inevitably—the discussion then begins to focus on care issues.
When Malcolm Chisholm and Rhona Brankin, as ministers, drove our older people's strategy, they were keen to ensure that there was an emphasis on the former aspect as well as on care
I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I concentrate on care issues in my speech.
Journalists do not often find themselves being praised in the Parliament, but I begin by offering a vote of thanks to the BBC and The Herald for what was investigative journalism at its best.
They made an important contribution to opening up a more rigorous debate on the nature of care of older people in our communities by confronting us all with the reality of neglect and abuse of vulnerable older people.
The "Panorama" exposé on home care and the more recent Herald investigation have had a powerful impact, but I regret that there has been insufficient evidence of urgency on the part of the Scottish Government in its response to their findings.
The investigations revealed the misery and inadequate support of real men and women.
Those findings are in tune with the reports of some of my constituents and, I am sure, of constituents of members throughout the chamber.
Few of us will be untouched by the realities and frustrations of securing proper care for older people.
Too many people—and their carers—describe their search for consistency and continuity of care as a battle or a struggle that is shaped by fear for the future rather than by confidence.
When we think of carers' battles for their loved ones, how much more fearful should we be for those without family or those for whom family members, as The Herald identified, are the problem because they are the perpetrators of abuse?
In the face of that situation, the Scottish Government's approach as indicated by the concordat—although certainly not by the broader contribution from the minister today, which was welcome—focuses simply on respite places and funding issues around free personal care.
That approach is inadequate and it misses the point.
We know all too well of cases in which people are offered inappropriate respite and that, as a consequence, much-needed support is not taken up.
It is also evident that we need to go beyond simple repetition of a commitment to free personal care, to addressing the quality of care and, indeed, what we mean by care.
The journalistic investigations have highlighted the gap between the reality in communities and the debate that the Parliament has been having over time.
We face a massive challenge: if the voices describing physical abuse, sexual abuse, financial abuse, neglect and exploitation of vulnerable people and those who are unable to defend themselves are to be heard properly and understood, we should not—indeed, we cannot—be defensive.
Our response must be brutally honest and urgent.
This is no time to explain away or defend the situation, or to marshal statistics to prove that everything is better than it has ever been—or, if it is not, to claim that the blame lies elsewhere.
I agree with the minister that the huge challenges that face us go beyond our usual politicking: this is the time for members of this Parliament to ask what we can do to address the challenges, and to examine what we need to change in order to respond to this scandal at the heart of our communities.
The challenge for ministers, the Scottish Government and the Parliament is to acknowledge that everything that they do must be tested against whether it makes people safer or makes things worse.
One example is the Scottish National Party's commitment to a centrally imposed council tax freeze.
Although the move has given some older people £1 or so a week extra in their pockets, it has also resulted in cuts to their day care services at a time when the Scottish budget has increased by £600 million.
If we are to interrogate the options seriously, we cannot simply leave to one side the reality of the impact of the imposed council tax freeze, with only assertion to defend it.
In response to the "Panorama" programme, the minister has said that she will issue guidance on home care that will be "very robust indeed".
I would welcome more information on whether that work has been done, on the dialogue that she has had with local authorities on the matter and on concerns that have been expressed about contracts.
As I say, the nature and scale of the challenge demand creative thinking and the acknowledgement that, as far as our society's priorities are concerned, we are in very-big-question territory.
Although much of the debate about older people has focused on pensions and funding, and despite our recognition that for many people the fourth age is a time for learning new skills and facing new challenges, the fact is that surveys of older people have repeatedly identified as key concerns loneliness, isolation and safety issues.
How should the Scottish Government be protecting those often very low-level but nonetheless lifeline services that are provided by lunch clubs, projects that take people to the library or to church and community transport schemes that allow people to visit hospital—in other words, the services that provide the kind of experiences that sustain people in their own homes, as opposed to care regimes that contain them there?
How is the Scottish Government going to support the community initiatives—such as the reminiscence groups run by the Village Storytelling Centre in my area—that seek to intervene early in respect of the impact of dementia, or the services that support elderly carers who wish to keep their loved ones with them as long as possible?
The fear is that, despite this debate and discussion, those very services, which provide people with real quality of life, are seen as luxuries when funding decisions are made.
We must be concerned by Audit Scotland's finding that local authority spending on care is being retrenched towards high-level needs, so I would welcome the minister's saying what discussions she has had with local authorities on that shift.
We have to fear for localised services when the efficiencies that the Scottish Government is demanding might be resulting in the stripping out of the key bits of care that make a difference.
We must acknowledge that if such services, which are driven by a compassionate understanding of need, are proving to be vulnerable, and if contracts are being squeezed to the extent that care providers are experiencing high staff turnover, the result can be the unbearable image from the "Panorama" programme—which is, I am sure, seared on all our minds—of an elderly man being washed while his carer was talking on her mobile phone.
Such an image will drive everyone in the chamber to tackle these issues.
I am interested to find out what the Scottish Government is doing to address staff turnover and the lack of regular contact with the same person, which are particular concerns in relation to quality of care.
I cannot be the only member with constituents who still, with all the stress that it involves, go home at lunchtime to check whether the support for their elderly parents has been delivered in the right way.
I am glad that the minister has acknowledged the critical role that the voluntary sector can play in understanding and meeting needs.
However, what is the sector's real role in the Government's work streams?
I understand that we cannot start with a blank sheet of paper, but liberating those who best understand need to tell us what has to be done has informed policy in the past and can do so again.
For example, we know that older volunteers have played a key role in supporting people and that an active interest in volunteering can keep people healthy and involved for longer.
It is therefore a matter of regret that the retired and senior volunteer programme had to close through lack of funding.
I am sure that the minister will recognise the anxiety of many that the shift in the balance of care will lead to increased pressure on carers, including voluntary carers.
I seek from the minister assurances on sustained funding, particularly for carer centres, which advocate for carers and offer a proper understanding of their experience as well as a support and help group for them through very challenging times.
Such centres provide proper and meaningful support so that carers can do what they want to do as well as possible. Although I understand that spending alone does not solve problems, stopping spending often creates problems or compounds them.
That is my concern about what is seen as the bonus issue.
There is an important debate to be had about the limit of technology as a means of supporting people in their homes. Although technology can buttress support in practical ways, it cannot be a substitute for it.
Technology cannot hold a person's hand when they are sad.
I am interested in what work the minister has done to shape the current approach of the Minister for Housing and Communities, at a time when sheltered housing is reducing—the number of wardens is reducing—and when organisations such as Inclusion Scotland are highlighting the need for local authorities to do more to provide housing to meet disabled people's needs.
Another issue is the effectiveness of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care in monitoring and in dealing with those who abuse the trust that we place in them to care for people.
We must ask how a dementia strategy can be supported and funded so that we transform the nature of care and provide proper processes in relation to personalised care and who is in control.
The future care of older people is a care issue, but it is also a justice issue.
We must hear from the minister about the discussions that she has had with justice officials and the care commission about prosecuting those who are guilty of stealing time from care packages or of abusing older people who are in their care.
That is not just in the interests of the identified victims; it will also deter those who might be tempted to prey on the elderly, which we will revisit tomorrow.
It is a scandal that the only action by the police as a consequence of the "Panorama" programme was to arrest the journalist who exposed the neglect rather than the perpetrators of it.
We should all condemn the treatment of the undercover journalist Arifa Farooq.
We must know that the justice system recognises its role in protecting the elderly.
If ever there was a need for a national conversation and a big debate, it is for one on future services to support older people.
People need consistency, continuity and confidence
The work of The Herald and the BBC opened up a set of circumstances.
It is a test for the Parliament to rise to the challenge. I assure the minister that, on the big questions, she will have the Opposition with her in ensuring that we have a proper strategy to protect our older people.
I also pay tribute to my colleague Irene Oldfather, who has, along with the cross-party group on older people, age and ageing, driven a lot of the work on the issue. Unfortunately, because of to her own caring responsibilities, she is unable to contribute today.
In debating services for older people, we must recognise that many older people are active and positive contributors, even though—inevitably—the discussion then begins to focus on care issues.
When Malcolm Chisholm and Rhona Brankin, as ministers, drove our older people's strategy, they were keen to ensure that there was an emphasis on the former aspect as well as on care
I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I concentrate on care issues in my speech.
Journalists do not often find themselves being praised in the Parliament, but I begin by offering a vote of thanks to the BBC and The Herald for what was investigative journalism at its best.
They made an important contribution to opening up a more rigorous debate on the nature of care of older people in our communities by confronting us all with the reality of neglect and abuse of vulnerable older people.
The "Panorama" exposé on home care and the more recent Herald investigation have had a powerful impact, but I regret that there has been insufficient evidence of urgency on the part of the Scottish Government in its response to their findings.
The investigations revealed the misery and inadequate support of real men and women.
Those findings are in tune with the reports of some of my constituents and, I am sure, of constituents of members throughout the chamber.
Few of us will be untouched by the realities and frustrations of securing proper care for older people.
Too many people—and their carers—describe their search for consistency and continuity of care as a battle or a struggle that is shaped by fear for the future rather than by confidence.
When we think of carers' battles for their loved ones, how much more fearful should we be for those without family or those for whom family members, as The Herald identified, are the problem because they are the perpetrators of abuse?
In the face of that situation, the Scottish Government's approach as indicated by the concordat—although certainly not by the broader contribution from the minister today, which was welcome—focuses simply on respite places and funding issues around free personal care.
That approach is inadequate and it misses the point.
We know all too well of cases in which people are offered inappropriate respite and that, as a consequence, much-needed support is not taken up.
It is also evident that we need to go beyond simple repetition of a commitment to free personal care, to addressing the quality of care and, indeed, what we mean by care.
The journalistic investigations have highlighted the gap between the reality in communities and the debate that the Parliament has been having over time.
We face a massive challenge: if the voices describing physical abuse, sexual abuse, financial abuse, neglect and exploitation of vulnerable people and those who are unable to defend themselves are to be heard properly and understood, we should not—indeed, we cannot—be defensive.
Our response must be brutally honest and urgent.
This is no time to explain away or defend the situation, or to marshal statistics to prove that everything is better than it has ever been—or, if it is not, to claim that the blame lies elsewhere.
I agree with the minister that the huge challenges that face us go beyond our usual politicking: this is the time for members of this Parliament to ask what we can do to address the challenges, and to examine what we need to change in order to respond to this scandal at the heart of our communities.
The challenge for ministers, the Scottish Government and the Parliament is to acknowledge that everything that they do must be tested against whether it makes people safer or makes things worse.
One example is the Scottish National Party's commitment to a centrally imposed council tax freeze.
Although the move has given some older people £1 or so a week extra in their pockets, it has also resulted in cuts to their day care services at a time when the Scottish budget has increased by £600 million.
If we are to interrogate the options seriously, we cannot simply leave to one side the reality of the impact of the imposed council tax freeze, with only assertion to defend it.
In response to the "Panorama" programme, the minister has said that she will issue guidance on home care that will be "very robust indeed".
I would welcome more information on whether that work has been done, on the dialogue that she has had with local authorities on the matter and on concerns that have been expressed about contracts.
As I say, the nature and scale of the challenge demand creative thinking and the acknowledgement that, as far as our society's priorities are concerned, we are in very-big-question territory.
Although much of the debate about older people has focused on pensions and funding, and despite our recognition that for many people the fourth age is a time for learning new skills and facing new challenges, the fact is that surveys of older people have repeatedly identified as key concerns loneliness, isolation and safety issues.
How should the Scottish Government be protecting those often very low-level but nonetheless lifeline services that are provided by lunch clubs, projects that take people to the library or to church and community transport schemes that allow people to visit hospital—in other words, the services that provide the kind of experiences that sustain people in their own homes, as opposed to care regimes that contain them there?
How is the Scottish Government going to support the community initiatives—such as the reminiscence groups run by the Village Storytelling Centre in my area—that seek to intervene early in respect of the impact of dementia, or the services that support elderly carers who wish to keep their loved ones with them as long as possible?
The fear is that, despite this debate and discussion, those very services, which provide people with real quality of life, are seen as luxuries when funding decisions are made.
We must be concerned by Audit Scotland's finding that local authority spending on care is being retrenched towards high-level needs, so I would welcome the minister's saying what discussions she has had with local authorities on that shift.
We have to fear for localised services when the efficiencies that the Scottish Government is demanding might be resulting in the stripping out of the key bits of care that make a difference.
We must acknowledge that if such services, which are driven by a compassionate understanding of need, are proving to be vulnerable, and if contracts are being squeezed to the extent that care providers are experiencing high staff turnover, the result can be the unbearable image from the "Panorama" programme—which is, I am sure, seared on all our minds—of an elderly man being washed while his carer was talking on her mobile phone.
Such an image will drive everyone in the chamber to tackle these issues.
I am interested to find out what the Scottish Government is doing to address staff turnover and the lack of regular contact with the same person, which are particular concerns in relation to quality of care.
I cannot be the only member with constituents who still, with all the stress that it involves, go home at lunchtime to check whether the support for their elderly parents has been delivered in the right way.
I am glad that the minister has acknowledged the critical role that the voluntary sector can play in understanding and meeting needs.
However, what is the sector's real role in the Government's work streams?
I understand that we cannot start with a blank sheet of paper, but liberating those who best understand need to tell us what has to be done has informed policy in the past and can do so again.
For example, we know that older volunteers have played a key role in supporting people and that an active interest in volunteering can keep people healthy and involved for longer.
It is therefore a matter of regret that the retired and senior volunteer programme had to close through lack of funding.
I am sure that the minister will recognise the anxiety of many that the shift in the balance of care will lead to increased pressure on carers, including voluntary carers.
I seek from the minister assurances on sustained funding, particularly for carer centres, which advocate for carers and offer a proper understanding of their experience as well as a support and help group for them through very challenging times.
Such centres provide proper and meaningful support so that carers can do what they want to do as well as possible. Although I understand that spending alone does not solve problems, stopping spending often creates problems or compounds them.
That is my concern about what is seen as the bonus issue.
There is an important debate to be had about the limit of technology as a means of supporting people in their homes. Although technology can buttress support in practical ways, it cannot be a substitute for it.
Technology cannot hold a person's hand when they are sad.
I am interested in what work the minister has done to shape the current approach of the Minister for Housing and Communities, at a time when sheltered housing is reducing—the number of wardens is reducing—and when organisations such as Inclusion Scotland are highlighting the need for local authorities to do more to provide housing to meet disabled people's needs.
Another issue is the effectiveness of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care in monitoring and in dealing with those who abuse the trust that we place in them to care for people.
We must ask how a dementia strategy can be supported and funded so that we transform the nature of care and provide proper processes in relation to personalised care and who is in control.
The future care of older people is a care issue, but it is also a justice issue.
We must hear from the minister about the discussions that she has had with justice officials and the care commission about prosecuting those who are guilty of stealing time from care packages or of abusing older people who are in their care.
That is not just in the interests of the identified victims; it will also deter those who might be tempted to prey on the elderly, which we will revisit tomorrow.
It is a scandal that the only action by the police as a consequence of the "Panorama" programme was to arrest the journalist who exposed the neglect rather than the perpetrators of it.
We should all condemn the treatment of the undercover journalist Arifa Farooq.
We must know that the justice system recognises its role in protecting the elderly.
If ever there was a need for a national conversation and a big debate, it is for one on future services to support older people.
People need consistency, continuity and confidence
The work of The Herald and the BBC opened up a set of circumstances.
It is a test for the Parliament to rise to the challenge. I assure the minister that, on the big questions, she will have the Opposition with her in ensuring that we have a proper strategy to protect our older people.
Volunteering - Scottish Parliament speech 8th. October 2009
Labour has chosen to use its time to debate volunteering and the voluntary sector both in recognition of their importance and because it is concerned about the lack of opportunities for consideration and scrutiny of the Scottish Government's approach that the Government has afforded.
The Scottish Government has promoted a wide range of non-debates in the chamber, but I cannot remember when these particular issues were last debated.
We want to give voice to concerns that are being reported to us by people throughout Scotland who are too afraid to speak up or speak out on their own behalf.
Indeed, I have been struck by the significant number of briefings that we have received as a result of this debate.
I thank everyone who provided a briefing; it is a measure of the subject's importance that they have been submitted.
It is right to recognise and celebrate the voluntary sector's role and we salute the volunteers who make a real difference to people who are very often the most isolated and vulnerable in our communities.
We know that volunteers can identify need, help to shape services and reach out into the parts of our communities where the state cannot go.
Volunteers such as those who work for Home-Start in my constituency can support and be trusted by vulnerable families who might fear more formal interventions by social work or health staff.
We know that volunteers make a massive social and economic contribution and that their influence on community life and cohesion is beyond measure.
We know, too, that volunteering enriches the lives of volunteers, both young and old; indeed, we have seen how significant the support for volunteering among older people has been.
Warm words, however, will sustain neither volunteers nor the voluntary sector and, like many others, I remain concerned that in its approach the SNP has been typically high on rhetoric but weak on delivery, with a separation between what it says it cares about and what it provides resources for.
I am also struck by the gap between ministers' approach, which borders on the complacent, and the issues that have been raised at a local level, including funding cuts, fears for the future and increased concern about the conditions of those who work with the voluntary sector.
In the time available, I will try to highlight some of those concerns.
First—and I do not say this lightly—I have been struck by the extent to which those involved have suggested that there is an atmosphere in which it is difficult for them to air concerns.
I hope that we all believe in and celebrate the independence of the voluntary sector, but the threat of the withdrawal of funding if critical voices are raised seems all too real.
That cannot be acceptable, but it has been reflected in the debate on the future of the councils for voluntary service network and the development of local interfaces.
Instead of following the principle of voluntary collaboration, we seem to be driving towards a forced measure, with funding being used to create compliance.
As I said, that is entirely unacceptable.
Secondly, there is concern that the Scottish Government seems to be of the view that the development of volunteering opportunities does not require resources.
The national volunteering strategy seems to have come to an end, and the single outcome agreements say nothing about the need for such strategies to be developed at a local level.
Thirdly, not that long ago, Unite, Unison and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations came together to highlight to the Parliament the crisis in the voluntary sector.
Who can forget the image of the hearse, which captured the fear of the sector's destruction?
Well, SNP back benchers will have forgotten it, because they did not have the courage to turn up and speak to the people who were raising these concerns.
There is also grave concern at the Scottish Government's lack of understanding of the powerful role that volunteering can play in tackling disadvantage, and we need to be proactive in encouraging such activity in our most disadvantaged communities.
After all, volunteering can improve skills, build confidence and form an important bulwark against the consequences of economic recession.
We need the Scottish Government to act, especially when we are faced with two contrasting sets of figures.
First, 18 per cent of adults in deprived communities volunteer, while the figure for Scotland is 33 per cent; secondly—and in stark contrast to that—the figure for young people not in education, employment or training is 11 per cent for the whole of Scotland, but 25 per cent in our 15 per cent most deprived communities.
The Scottish Government must find a way of intervening to ensure that our poorest communities, which would benefit most from the skills that volunteering can bring, are afforded such opportunities.
Tricia Marwick (Central Fife) (SNP): Does the member not agree that one of the difficulties that the voluntary sector is facing is the move to compel people who do not want to go into employment or training to accept a place in the sector? Surely the whole ethos of volunteering is that it should be voluntary. Does the member agree that compulsion in this matter is very wrong and will she condemn the United Kingdom Government for trying to force through such a measure?
Johann Lamont: I regret the fact that Tricia Marwick wishes to attack the United Kingdom Government, rather than join us in contemplating challenges in our local communities.
Young people in poor communities could be afforded the opportunity to volunteer, which would address the fact that disproportionate numbers of them have been hit by the recession.
The Scottish Government's answer to that situation is to end funding for ProjectScotland, a body that has a focus on reaching out to young people for whom it is more difficult to access volunteering opportunities and who would benefit disproportionately from them.
There are examples of that in my community and, I am sure, throughout Scotland.
Despite that, the Scottish Government is ending ProjectScotland's funding.
The Government says that it is a matter of cost, but the reality is that 87 per cent of the money from the public purse that is used to support volunteering opportunities through ProjectScotland goes directly into the pockets of the young volunteers and, from those young people, out into the hard-pressed communities in which they live.
We know that 40 per cent of ProjectScotland's volunteers come from the 20 per cent most deprived communities.
At a time of economic recession, it is bizarre for the Scottish Government to make that decision, which shows a lack of understanding of the recession's disproportionate impact on poor communities and individuals.
It is time for the Scottish Government to confront the consequences of its decisions.
Its budget has increased in real terms by £600 million, but it is devolving responsibility to local level, with a reduced budget.
As a consequence, there are cuts in local government budgets.
Local government's capacity to find resources is restricted because of the impact of the council tax freeze.
The Scottish Government must accept that the funding problems that voluntary sector organisations and local volunteers are experiencing are its responsibility.
The Scottish Government should take a lesson from volunteers and the volunteering spirit.
It should take responsibility and recognise that warm words mean nothing without action to make the commitment real.
Having created huge problems for voluntary organisations and volunteering, the minister adds insult to injury by walking by on the other side.
I urge him to reconsider his position on ProjectScotland and to listen to and engage honestly with all those in the voluntary sector who wish to volunteer but who tell us that there are significant problems at local level.
That will give us confidence that volunteers and the voluntary sector can survive and thrive again.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises and celebrates the role of the voluntary sector and volunteers across Scotland in supporting individuals, families and communities and in shaping and delivering services locally; notes the excellent work of volunteering organisations in encouraging volunteering through offering training and volunteering placements and particularly in reaching out to those who might not otherwise have the chance to volunteer; agrees, given the opportunity that volunteering provides to develop skills and build confidence, that, in this economic recession, volunteering organisations should be given adequate resources to allow them to do that important work, and further agrees that innovative organisations that create structured volunteering placements for young people, such as ProjectScotland, should be recognised and supported by the Scottish Government.
Winding-up speech
Johann Lamont: The debate has been interesting, because it has captured three elements of the SNP's approach since it came into government.
First, there has been further evidence of its willingness to ignore the will of Parliament.
Parliament has spoken before on the issue of ProjectScotland, but the SNP has chosen to ignore its voice.
Secondly, we have heard warm words that are a million miles away from delivery or any sense of responsibility for what is happening.
Thirdly, there has been absolute silence from Government back benchers, who are unwilling to suggest that anything that ministers are doing may not be absolutely correct.
I was chided by an SNP back bencher when I mentioned their craven compliance.
She told me that I did not like the fact that SNP members are united.
My problem is that I do not like unity that is at the expense of voluntary organisations and others that need members to speak up for them.
The great test of the maturity of the SNP Government is whether its back benchers are allowed and have the confidence to raise even a squeak about the problems that our local communities face.
Tricia Marwick: Given my record over the past few weeks, when I spoke here opposing the Government on an issue in my constituency, I object strongly to the member's suggestion that I would not criticise ministers. However, I will not criticise them on this occasion, because on this occasion they are right.
Johann Lamont: The member is to be congratulated on having the confidence to oppose the Government once; whether that is followed through in voting is a different matter.
The point has been made, and the member may want to reflect on it.
I have referred to the Government's warm words.
Is the minister seriously saying that there are no concerns in voluntary organisations and among volunteers, and that they do not think that there is a problem?
He said that all the pessimism is here in the chamber, rather than in the outside world.
What does he think the hearse that was brought to the Parliament was about?
Why does he think that Unite, Unison and the SCVO came together to express their concerns?
Why, does he imagine, are people talking about the cuts at local level?
Are they just making it up, as Tricia Marwick seemed to suggest?
I found her comments that the voluntary sector has to be about more than just jobs for those who work in it absolutely insulting to those who have raised issues of concern; she may wish to reflect on that.
In relation to Mr Mather's warm words and the issue of ProjectScotland, I do not think that the whole debate is actually about ProjectScotland. ProjectScotland captures an approach.
I would like somebody in the SNP to explain to me why its members have such a problem with ProjectScotland. They are supporting a motion that welcomes
"organisations that create structured volunteering placements for young people, such as ProjectScotland",
and they agree that such organisations
"should be recognised and supported by the Scottish Government."
Are SNP members seriously saying that support does not involve funding, and that it involves only warm words? If so, they need to reflect on that, too.
We are told that there is a value-for-money test for ProjectScotland.
As we have said, 87 per cent of the moneys will go into the pockets of young people in the poorest of our communities.
Perhaps the minister would have more credibility on the argument around the value-for-money test if he was not promoting a Scottish Futures Trust that is spending £23 million to deliver absolutely nothing.
The minister has spoken about passion. We all have passion about the voluntary sector.
However, passion does not deliver services, and it does not in itself make a difference in our communities.
The interesting thing about people who volunteer—and about the voluntary sector—is that they have passion in partnership with a hard-headed approach.
If volunteers say that they are in dire straits, we should listen to them, rather than dismiss them in the way that has been suggested in the debate.
The Government makes great play of the resilience fund.
Apparently, it is wonderful and it will help the voluntary sector when it is under the cosh.
Actually, that captures a lack of responsibility.
The Scottish Government creates the crisis, cutting funding to local government despite its increased budget; it imposes a council tax freeze; and it uses a single outcome agreement model and the concordat without properly funding it, which is the major problem, rather than the model itself, as is suggested in Robert Brown's amendment. Then, when people say that there is a problem, the Government creates a resilience fund of £1.7 million for one year only—from old, previously announced money—which is a sticking plaster, and then trumpets that as a great success and evidence of its willingness to address the problem.
The minister talks about how the SCVO, COSLA and the Scottish Government have produced a joint statement.
That joint statement, on glossy paper, leaves unspoken some of the key issues that voluntary organisations, voluntary sector representatives and volunteers themselves have been addressing, including the difficult issue of full cost recovery.
The minister started by saying that he wanted to accentuate the positive.
The problem with that approach, which captures the language of a cheesy song from a cheesy musical, is that the minister is entirely distancing himself from the consequence of his Government's actions.
He is creating the impression that being nice about things will make a difference.
As I have said, however, the voluntary sector is a tough place, doing tough things, and it deserves a better approach than that.
The minister talked about ProjectScotland as a niche product.
As that one phrase shows, could there be a bigger gap between our vision, across the Parliament, of what ProjectScotland is and the minister's view of it?
It is a project that has changed lives.
The minister says that the Government wants to focus on people who are really difficult to reach, rather than on people who do not deserve it.
The figures about the reduction in placements across Scotland show that those reductions are coming about in the poorest of our communities, not in better-off communities.
Where ProjectScotland was reaching out to youngsters in deprived communities, it is now less able to do so.
I urge the minister, SNP back benchers and the Scottish Government to treat volunteering and voluntary organisations with respect.
There is a surfeit of warm words wherever we talk about volunteering, but the test must be whether the SNP is willing to recognise that this is not a trumped-up debate by the Opposition but a reflection of serious concerns across Scotland about the way in which Government decisions and actions are hampering organisations' capacity to do what they do best.
When meeting representatives of voluntary sector organisations, I urge the minister to deal with the issue of intimidation and to meet them as genuine partners.
We will judge the capacity and effectiveness of such meetings by whether there is a shift in his and his Government's policy.
The Scottish Government has promoted a wide range of non-debates in the chamber, but I cannot remember when these particular issues were last debated.
We want to give voice to concerns that are being reported to us by people throughout Scotland who are too afraid to speak up or speak out on their own behalf.
Indeed, I have been struck by the significant number of briefings that we have received as a result of this debate.
I thank everyone who provided a briefing; it is a measure of the subject's importance that they have been submitted.
It is right to recognise and celebrate the voluntary sector's role and we salute the volunteers who make a real difference to people who are very often the most isolated and vulnerable in our communities.
We know that volunteers can identify need, help to shape services and reach out into the parts of our communities where the state cannot go.
Volunteers such as those who work for Home-Start in my constituency can support and be trusted by vulnerable families who might fear more formal interventions by social work or health staff.
We know that volunteers make a massive social and economic contribution and that their influence on community life and cohesion is beyond measure.
We know, too, that volunteering enriches the lives of volunteers, both young and old; indeed, we have seen how significant the support for volunteering among older people has been.
Warm words, however, will sustain neither volunteers nor the voluntary sector and, like many others, I remain concerned that in its approach the SNP has been typically high on rhetoric but weak on delivery, with a separation between what it says it cares about and what it provides resources for.
I am also struck by the gap between ministers' approach, which borders on the complacent, and the issues that have been raised at a local level, including funding cuts, fears for the future and increased concern about the conditions of those who work with the voluntary sector.
In the time available, I will try to highlight some of those concerns.
First—and I do not say this lightly—I have been struck by the extent to which those involved have suggested that there is an atmosphere in which it is difficult for them to air concerns.
I hope that we all believe in and celebrate the independence of the voluntary sector, but the threat of the withdrawal of funding if critical voices are raised seems all too real.
That cannot be acceptable, but it has been reflected in the debate on the future of the councils for voluntary service network and the development of local interfaces.
Instead of following the principle of voluntary collaboration, we seem to be driving towards a forced measure, with funding being used to create compliance.
As I said, that is entirely unacceptable.
Secondly, there is concern that the Scottish Government seems to be of the view that the development of volunteering opportunities does not require resources.
The national volunteering strategy seems to have come to an end, and the single outcome agreements say nothing about the need for such strategies to be developed at a local level.
Thirdly, not that long ago, Unite, Unison and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations came together to highlight to the Parliament the crisis in the voluntary sector.
Who can forget the image of the hearse, which captured the fear of the sector's destruction?
Well, SNP back benchers will have forgotten it, because they did not have the courage to turn up and speak to the people who were raising these concerns.
There is also grave concern at the Scottish Government's lack of understanding of the powerful role that volunteering can play in tackling disadvantage, and we need to be proactive in encouraging such activity in our most disadvantaged communities.
After all, volunteering can improve skills, build confidence and form an important bulwark against the consequences of economic recession.
We need the Scottish Government to act, especially when we are faced with two contrasting sets of figures.
First, 18 per cent of adults in deprived communities volunteer, while the figure for Scotland is 33 per cent; secondly—and in stark contrast to that—the figure for young people not in education, employment or training is 11 per cent for the whole of Scotland, but 25 per cent in our 15 per cent most deprived communities.
The Scottish Government must find a way of intervening to ensure that our poorest communities, which would benefit most from the skills that volunteering can bring, are afforded such opportunities.
Tricia Marwick (Central Fife) (SNP): Does the member not agree that one of the difficulties that the voluntary sector is facing is the move to compel people who do not want to go into employment or training to accept a place in the sector? Surely the whole ethos of volunteering is that it should be voluntary. Does the member agree that compulsion in this matter is very wrong and will she condemn the United Kingdom Government for trying to force through such a measure?
Johann Lamont: I regret the fact that Tricia Marwick wishes to attack the United Kingdom Government, rather than join us in contemplating challenges in our local communities.
Young people in poor communities could be afforded the opportunity to volunteer, which would address the fact that disproportionate numbers of them have been hit by the recession.
The Scottish Government's answer to that situation is to end funding for ProjectScotland, a body that has a focus on reaching out to young people for whom it is more difficult to access volunteering opportunities and who would benefit disproportionately from them.
There are examples of that in my community and, I am sure, throughout Scotland.
Despite that, the Scottish Government is ending ProjectScotland's funding.
The Government says that it is a matter of cost, but the reality is that 87 per cent of the money from the public purse that is used to support volunteering opportunities through ProjectScotland goes directly into the pockets of the young volunteers and, from those young people, out into the hard-pressed communities in which they live.
We know that 40 per cent of ProjectScotland's volunteers come from the 20 per cent most deprived communities.
At a time of economic recession, it is bizarre for the Scottish Government to make that decision, which shows a lack of understanding of the recession's disproportionate impact on poor communities and individuals.
It is time for the Scottish Government to confront the consequences of its decisions.
Its budget has increased in real terms by £600 million, but it is devolving responsibility to local level, with a reduced budget.
As a consequence, there are cuts in local government budgets.
Local government's capacity to find resources is restricted because of the impact of the council tax freeze.
The Scottish Government must accept that the funding problems that voluntary sector organisations and local volunteers are experiencing are its responsibility.
The Scottish Government should take a lesson from volunteers and the volunteering spirit.
It should take responsibility and recognise that warm words mean nothing without action to make the commitment real.
Having created huge problems for voluntary organisations and volunteering, the minister adds insult to injury by walking by on the other side.
I urge him to reconsider his position on ProjectScotland and to listen to and engage honestly with all those in the voluntary sector who wish to volunteer but who tell us that there are significant problems at local level.
That will give us confidence that volunteers and the voluntary sector can survive and thrive again.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises and celebrates the role of the voluntary sector and volunteers across Scotland in supporting individuals, families and communities and in shaping and delivering services locally; notes the excellent work of volunteering organisations in encouraging volunteering through offering training and volunteering placements and particularly in reaching out to those who might not otherwise have the chance to volunteer; agrees, given the opportunity that volunteering provides to develop skills and build confidence, that, in this economic recession, volunteering organisations should be given adequate resources to allow them to do that important work, and further agrees that innovative organisations that create structured volunteering placements for young people, such as ProjectScotland, should be recognised and supported by the Scottish Government.
Winding-up speech
Johann Lamont: The debate has been interesting, because it has captured three elements of the SNP's approach since it came into government.
First, there has been further evidence of its willingness to ignore the will of Parliament.
Parliament has spoken before on the issue of ProjectScotland, but the SNP has chosen to ignore its voice.
Secondly, we have heard warm words that are a million miles away from delivery or any sense of responsibility for what is happening.
Thirdly, there has been absolute silence from Government back benchers, who are unwilling to suggest that anything that ministers are doing may not be absolutely correct.
I was chided by an SNP back bencher when I mentioned their craven compliance.
She told me that I did not like the fact that SNP members are united.
My problem is that I do not like unity that is at the expense of voluntary organisations and others that need members to speak up for them.
The great test of the maturity of the SNP Government is whether its back benchers are allowed and have the confidence to raise even a squeak about the problems that our local communities face.
Tricia Marwick: Given my record over the past few weeks, when I spoke here opposing the Government on an issue in my constituency, I object strongly to the member's suggestion that I would not criticise ministers. However, I will not criticise them on this occasion, because on this occasion they are right.
Johann Lamont: The member is to be congratulated on having the confidence to oppose the Government once; whether that is followed through in voting is a different matter.
The point has been made, and the member may want to reflect on it.
I have referred to the Government's warm words.
Is the minister seriously saying that there are no concerns in voluntary organisations and among volunteers, and that they do not think that there is a problem?
He said that all the pessimism is here in the chamber, rather than in the outside world.
What does he think the hearse that was brought to the Parliament was about?
Why does he think that Unite, Unison and the SCVO came together to express their concerns?
Why, does he imagine, are people talking about the cuts at local level?
Are they just making it up, as Tricia Marwick seemed to suggest?
I found her comments that the voluntary sector has to be about more than just jobs for those who work in it absolutely insulting to those who have raised issues of concern; she may wish to reflect on that.
In relation to Mr Mather's warm words and the issue of ProjectScotland, I do not think that the whole debate is actually about ProjectScotland. ProjectScotland captures an approach.
I would like somebody in the SNP to explain to me why its members have such a problem with ProjectScotland. They are supporting a motion that welcomes
"organisations that create structured volunteering placements for young people, such as ProjectScotland",
and they agree that such organisations
"should be recognised and supported by the Scottish Government."
Are SNP members seriously saying that support does not involve funding, and that it involves only warm words? If so, they need to reflect on that, too.
We are told that there is a value-for-money test for ProjectScotland.
As we have said, 87 per cent of the moneys will go into the pockets of young people in the poorest of our communities.
Perhaps the minister would have more credibility on the argument around the value-for-money test if he was not promoting a Scottish Futures Trust that is spending £23 million to deliver absolutely nothing.
The minister has spoken about passion. We all have passion about the voluntary sector.
However, passion does not deliver services, and it does not in itself make a difference in our communities.
The interesting thing about people who volunteer—and about the voluntary sector—is that they have passion in partnership with a hard-headed approach.
If volunteers say that they are in dire straits, we should listen to them, rather than dismiss them in the way that has been suggested in the debate.
The Government makes great play of the resilience fund.
Apparently, it is wonderful and it will help the voluntary sector when it is under the cosh.
Actually, that captures a lack of responsibility.
The Scottish Government creates the crisis, cutting funding to local government despite its increased budget; it imposes a council tax freeze; and it uses a single outcome agreement model and the concordat without properly funding it, which is the major problem, rather than the model itself, as is suggested in Robert Brown's amendment. Then, when people say that there is a problem, the Government creates a resilience fund of £1.7 million for one year only—from old, previously announced money—which is a sticking plaster, and then trumpets that as a great success and evidence of its willingness to address the problem.
The minister talks about how the SCVO, COSLA and the Scottish Government have produced a joint statement.
That joint statement, on glossy paper, leaves unspoken some of the key issues that voluntary organisations, voluntary sector representatives and volunteers themselves have been addressing, including the difficult issue of full cost recovery.
The minister started by saying that he wanted to accentuate the positive.
The problem with that approach, which captures the language of a cheesy song from a cheesy musical, is that the minister is entirely distancing himself from the consequence of his Government's actions.
He is creating the impression that being nice about things will make a difference.
As I have said, however, the voluntary sector is a tough place, doing tough things, and it deserves a better approach than that.
The minister talked about ProjectScotland as a niche product.
As that one phrase shows, could there be a bigger gap between our vision, across the Parliament, of what ProjectScotland is and the minister's view of it?
It is a project that has changed lives.
The minister says that the Government wants to focus on people who are really difficult to reach, rather than on people who do not deserve it.
The figures about the reduction in placements across Scotland show that those reductions are coming about in the poorest of our communities, not in better-off communities.
Where ProjectScotland was reaching out to youngsters in deprived communities, it is now less able to do so.
I urge the minister, SNP back benchers and the Scottish Government to treat volunteering and voluntary organisations with respect.
There is a surfeit of warm words wherever we talk about volunteering, but the test must be whether the SNP is willing to recognise that this is not a trumped-up debate by the Opposition but a reflection of serious concerns across Scotland about the way in which Government decisions and actions are hampering organisations' capacity to do what they do best.
When meeting representatives of voluntary sector organisations, I urge the minister to deal with the issue of intimidation and to meet them as genuine partners.
We will judge the capacity and effectiveness of such meetings by whether there is a shift in his and his Government's policy.
20.9.09
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)