Plenary, 23 Dec 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, December 23, 2004

Official Report 492KB pdf

---

Craigneuk Development and Support Unit

The final item of business this year is a members' business debate on motion S2M-2080, in the name of Alex Neil, on the closure of the Craigneuk Development and Support Unit. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament expresses its deep regret that the Craigneuk Development and Support Unit has been forced to announce its closure and the forced redundancy of its staff with effect from Christmas Eve, as a direct result of the actions taken by North Lanarkshire Council to withdraw funding from this organisation and the services it provides; notes that the withdrawal of the unit's counselling and support services will have a detrimental effect on the levels of poverty and deprivation in the communities which it serves, and believes that the way in which the council has treated this excellent organisation should be the subject of a detailed examination by Audit Scotland and the auditors of the European Commission and that appropriate steps should be taken to stop local authorities creating third party agencies which deliberately undermine and subvert the work of existing providers who are doing an excellent job, as was the case with the Craigneuk Development and Support Unit.

I am sorry that no Labour member, other than the Minister for Communities, has seen fit to stay behind. I am particularly sorry that the local member, Mr McConnell, has not stayed behind, as the issue is important. As the rest of us leave to celebrate Christmas, the people of the Craigneuk Development and Support Unit are facing redundancy.

Before I discuss the specific issues relating to the Craigneuk Development and Support Unit, I emphasise that the area in which the unit operates is one of the most deprived parts not only of Lanarkshire, but of Scotland. Recent statistics published by the Scottish Executive and the report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have demonstrated that, in Scotland, the incidence of poverty and deprivation in North Lanarkshire is second only to that in Glasgow.

The work of organisations such as the Craigneuk Development and Support Unit, which started as a voluntary organisation in 1991, is therefore vital to the people in the area. For the past 13 years, the unit has provided sterling support and service to local people, dealing in particular with those who are down on their luck, who are unemployed, who require help with benefits, who require training or retraining or who otherwise need the support of the unit to assist with their domestic and employment situations. The unit currently employs five people full time and its work has been given many testimonials by local people.

Everything seemed to be going fairly swimmingly until a couple of years ago, when the local social inclusion partnership, the North Lanarkshire partnership, and North Lanarkshire Council—to a large extent, they are basically the same organisation; they are certainly controlled by more or less the same players and participants—commissioned a review with a view to creating what is called an intermediate community organisation in North Lanarkshire. That review was carried out over a period of about 18 months in 2002 and 2003. As a result, the Craigneuk Development and Support Unit is now facing closure and the people who work for it are facing redundancy.

Many of the MSPs who represent the area, including the ones in the chamber today, had written to North Lanarkshire Council and the North Lanarkshire partnership, as well as to other organisations, to ascertain the facts and figures in the review. To date, we have not been given a full or comprehensive statement on the review's conclusions or the basis of those conclusions.

We know, however, that the Craigneuk unit agreed that there should be an organisation to cover the rest of North Lanarkshire providing the kind of services that the unit provides, which were not available in many other parts of the local authority area. We also know that the Craigneuk Development and Support Unit's staff and management committee, which is a voluntary body, assisted North Lanarkshire Council in putting together a package of information that became the basis of a successful application for European Union funding, resulting in a European regional development fund award of about £218,000. The basis of the submission was that, in its area of North Lanarkshire, the Craigneuk Development and Support Unit would act as the delivery mechanism for the implementation of the programme that had received European funding.

Unfortunately, North Lanarkshire Council and the North Lanarkshire partnership have pulled the rug from under the unit. Basically, the work has been transferred to the new organisation that has been set up, which is called Routes to Work. I will in no way decry Routes to Work, which I am sure will provide many useful services to people in other areas. However, it is a relatively new organisation and it does not have the experience of the Craigneuk unit. It certainly does not have the same presence in the part of North Lanarkshire that the Craigneuk unit serves.

We would all agree that the way in which the situation has been handled, the disregard for the voluntary efforts of the unit's management committee, the disregard of the wishes of local people and the fact that the future of the five staff working at the unit—some of whom have made many sacrifices over the years to serve their community—has been totally ignored have been absolutely appalling. We are now in a regrettable situation in which, because the funds have been cut off, the management committee has been left with no option but to close the unit and make its staff redundant. That affects not just the Craigneuk unit, but two other services that are provided from the unit's premises—the Craigneuk benefit group and the area's over-60s lunch club.

Particularly galling is the fact that in the very week when the staff are being made redundant, a press release from North Lanarkshire Council indicates that the Scottish Executive has agreed to provide an additional £33 million over the next three years—£11 million a year—for the provision of services relating to regeneration. Despite all that, the council is standing by and allowing the staff to be made redundant and the service to be abolished. It is the duty of the Parliament to record its deep disappointment and disgust about the way in which the unit has been treated.

I conclude by reminding everyone here—there are not many of us—of the Scottish Executive's stated objectives in relation to such services. The Scottish Executive's policy is

"to see a Scotland where public services meet the needs of people and not the demands of the organisations which deliver them"—

such as North Lanarkshire Council or the North Lanarkshire partnership—

"and where social justice is a right and not a privilege."

The Executive's strategy is to

"build on the firm foundations already in place."

It is not to undermine and undercut existing organisations. The Executive also states that people should work

"closely with community leaders and work together. There is no other way."

Unfortunately, North Lanarkshire Council has adopted another way, which is detrimental not just to the unit but, more important, to local people in that deprived part of Lanarkshire.

I congratulate Alex Neil on securing the debate, which raises important issues relating not only to the treatment of the Craigneuk Development and Support Unit, but to all voluntary organisations. As we all know, voluntary organisations make a tremendous contribution to the life and work of our communities. By their nature, they tend to provide value for money, because of the voluntary element and expertise that the workers add to complement salaried staff. The work that the CDSU has carried out over 13 years represents a model of best practice in the voluntary sector.

The unit evolved from the work of a support action group that was set up in Craigneuk to tackle poverty issues. As a result of that group's work, the need to address long-term unemployment in the Craigneuk area was recognised and the unit was established in 1991. Since then, the organisation has had an excellent track record in providing education, training and opportunities for the long-term unemployed. Moreover, the quality of the service that it provides has been recognised by organisations such as Motherwell College and Scottish Enterprise Lanarkshire, both of which have entered into training contracts with the unit. Therefore, the unit has to an extent been self-financing, providing even more value for money.

North Lanarkshire Council has attempted to mitigate its withdrawal of support for an organisation with a tried and proven track record by stating that some of the full-time staff employed by the CDSU will be working for the successor organisation, Routes to Work. In other words, it has implied that it is business as usual, but nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the clients with whom the CDSU has dealt on a recurring basis will simply not approach organisations such as Routes to Work, which is seen as having close links with the local authority. That point is confirmed by those who work in the citizens advice bureau, who state that people will come to them to talk freely and seek advice about issues such as debt, rent or council tax arrears, because the bureau is seen to be independent of the local authority.

Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the new organisation can provide the same value for money as the CDSU did, given the absence of voluntary input. I understand that the Scottish Executive's strategic review of voluntary sector funding is to be published before the end of the year and I ask the minister to take those points into account in the final report.

In conclusion, the closure of the unit means that, today, people in Craigneuk and the surrounding areas are being deprived of a valuable service merely, it seems, to support the empire-building activities of North Lanarkshire Council.

I will deal first with some specific points about Craigneuk and then with the wider lessons that are to be learned, as I see them.

I congratulate Alex Neil on securing the debate. Several of us have been trying to help Craigneuk for many years. The unit was one of the first organisations in central Scotland that I visited after the election of the Scottish Parliament. I was very impressed with what was being done there and, on its behalf, I handed out certificates to some of its graduates, as it were, at Motherwell College. It was a really good organisation that was based in the community and run by volunteers with some paid staff. They provided advice and help on a wide range of things, as has been said. Particularly, I thought that they were very good at getting people on to the first rung of the ladder to work, which is the hardest rung to get on to. There are many rungs further up the ladder, but the challenge is to get people who are sitting in the dust on to the bottom rung. Not many places do that, and I thought that Craigneuk did that very effectively; therefore, I was a strong supporter of the centre.

I was appalled when the local authority seemed to have it in for the centre. What was especially harsh was that the skills, knowledge and local connections at Craigneuk were called in by the council to assist in the setting up of Routes to Work—to put the case for European funding and other things. The people at Craigneuk had their brains pilfered for the new organisation and the new organisation was then used to stuff them—I am not sure whether that is parliamentary language, but members know what I mean. I thought that that was rubbing salt in the wounds. No organisation likes to lose its funding, but that was especially galling to Craigneuk.

I do not know whether money from any of the new funds might be available. Alex Neil mentioned one and there are others, such as the futurebuilders fund, which are meant to help social groups to develop as businesses. Even at this late stage, there might be some national fund that could assist Craigneuk. Failing that, I hope that the minister will take account of the main issue behind the disagreement, which is well summed up in the petition that was submitted by Craigneuk to the Parliament. The petition states:

"The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its guidance for local authorities on the allocation of funding to the voluntary sector and in particular the apparent emphasis on the funding of innovative/new projects at the expense of existing projects."

I keep on saying that in speeches, but not as well as that.

We keep on supporting new bodies—whether at the local or the national level—and neglecting existing bodies. Also, many public officials, both national and local, honestly do not understand the voluntary sector and dislike working with it. It is a bit different, a bit shambolic and slightly harder to pin down, but it delivers the goods and mobilises real energy and knowledge, which public bodies normally cannot do. The minister must initiate a sea change in how we support the voluntary sector, nationally and locally, to enable it to make the contribution that it can make to our community. Voluntary sector organisations can do things that nobody else can. Volunteers with real local knowledge are pearls beyond price, and we must make good use of them instead of—as is happening in this case—dismissing the whole lot.

First, I congratulate Alex Neil on securing the debate and share the general support that he, Margaret Mitchell and Donald Gorrie have expressed for the voluntary sector's role in this and many other areas. I also want to highlight my determination to tackle poverty and deprivation in communities such as Craigneuk.

As Alex Neil pointed out, the Executive announced just this month a funding package of £318 million over the next three years to tackle poverty in our most deprived communities. This funding, which has been called the community regeneration fund, is being carefully targeted to ensure that we focus on Scotland's most deprived areas. Earlier this year, we published the Scottish index of multiple deprivation to help to pinpoint areas that require our attention. As I shall point out in a moment, North Lanarkshire is a significant beneficiary of our new funding package.

As a result, we have made a significant commitment to provide resources to tackle disadvantage. It is now vital that we ensure that the resources are used to make a real difference. That was acknowledged in a review of the social inclusion partnership programme, which we commissioned in 2002 from Cambridge Economic Policy Associates. The review highlighted the importance of tackling poverty on a wider front and the need to ensure that public services take a joined-up approach to addressing the needs of the people in our poorest communities. In particular, it pointed out that the funding made available through programmes such as SIPs and the community regeneration fund needs to be used alongside mainstream funding for public services.

We listened carefully to those messages and to the views of partners working in the most disadvantaged areas, and have acknowledged the importance of joining up action to tackle local disadvantage. That is why we have given local community planning partnerships a key role in developing an integrated approach and building on the best social inclusion partnership experiences. Over the past year, community planning partnerships have been working hard to integrate social inclusion partnerships and to manage a transition to the new approach, which is supported by the community regeneration fund and focused on closing the opportunity gap.

The motion highlights a local situation in which the community planning partnership has been grappling with difficult local issues in this context. However, I must stress that the North Lanarkshire partnership has taken these local decisions within the context of the Scottish Executive's general guidance in order to reflect local priorities and circumstances.

Is the minister concerned that, with all the emphasis on local priorities and circumstances, this local community was not consulted before the decision was taken?

A key element of our guidance on the community regeneration fund is that local people should be involved in any decision that is made. However, I will look further into the allegation that has been made.

I have already mentioned the new community regeneration fund, which will greatly increase the funding that is available to the North Lanarkshire partnership. In 2004-05, North Lanarkshire's combined SIP and better neighbourhood services fund budget was £5.5 million; however, our recent announcement has increased funding through the community regeneration fund to £9.8 million this year, which will rise to nearly £12 million in 2007-08. That more than doubles what has been available through the SIP and BNSF programmes.

As a result, this issue is not about a lack of resources or support from the Scottish Executive. Instead, it centres on using the available money to best effect and leaving local operational decisions to those who are in the best place to understand local dynamics and issues within the context of the Scottish Executive's overarching guidance.

Does the minister share my concern about the increasing trend to sideline organisations such as the CDSU that have a proven track record in favour of new organisations that simply do not have the same expertise? Will he take any steps to address such a trend?

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I recognise and pay tribute to the voluntary sector's key role in that regard. However, it is difficult to generalise about this topic, because each situation has to be looked at on its own merits. My enthusiasm for the voluntary sector in general cannot become a blanket enthusiasm for every voluntary organisation in Scotland.

North Lanarkshire partnership has taken a serious and systematic approach to the matter. For example, it has undertaken a sustainability review of each and every project that the SIP has funded on an inclusive basis and in sufficient time to manage the changes that have resulted.

Does the minister agree that the full report of the sustainability review should be made public, and should be consulted upon before being acted upon?

I believe in maximum transparency, so I am sure that the report should be made public. I also made a point in response to Linda Fabiani about involving local people in decisions.

SIP funding for the Craigneuk project was due to end in March 2004. The sustainability review started work in 2003, and the CDSU was fully involved in the process and was visited by the review team. All of this is what I am told, since I have no personal knowledge or experience of the project. The review team submitted its report to the North Lanarkshire partnership, which decided in December 2003 to end SIP funding to the CDSU with effect from April 2004—a decision that was communicated to the CDSU at the time, a full year ago. That was a local decision, made by those on the ground closest to the real needs of the area.

I am also told that Scottish Enterprise Lanarkshire assessed the CDSU's work in relation to providing job access services to unemployed people, and concluded that the CDSU significantly underperformed in all areas. In addition, in reaching the decision to cease funding the CDSU, the partnership assured itself that there would be no detrimental effect on services to unemployed people in Craigneuk, although I note Margaret Mitchell's point on that. The community planning partnership believes that the Routes to Work model provides a more integrated approach, with mainstream funding commitments from Scottish Enterprise, Careers Scotland, North Lanarkshire Council and Strathclyde European Partnership supplementing the funding from the SIP and the community regeneration fund.

I understand that North Lanarkshire partnership guaranteed that all CDSU staff would be interviewed for posts with Routes to Work, funded a further review of options for alternative services that the CDSU could develop, and offered staff time to help the CDSU to implement an action plan. Two staff who took up the offer of interview have been offered posts with Routes to Work. The remaining CDSU staff declined the offer, I am told.

While I do not in any way want to underplay the human dimension of those developments, we need to focus on the fundamental purpose of our interventions in this field—namely, to maximise our impact on tackling poverty and deprivation, and to close the opportunity gap in our most deprived communities. We have made explicit through "Closing the Opportunity Gap" the targets that we have set out to achieve. We have engaged community planning partnerships to join up action at the local level and to recognise the importance of mainstream services. We have charged local community planning partnerships to deliver that new approach. In this case, it is North Lanarkshire partnership's judgment that an integrated approach to delivering job access services through Routes to Work will have the desired impact in Craigneuk and similar areas.

I thank Donald Gorrie, Margaret Mitchell and Alex Neil, in particular, for their contributions. They have given us all plenty of food for thought, and I shall certainly reflect further on the points that they raised.

Meeting closed at 15:28.