A Conservative Party Green Paper

Sixty million citizensUnlocking Britain’s social capital

Promoted by Stephen Gilbert,on behalf of the Conservative Party,

both at 32 Smith Square, London SW1P 3HH

Sixty million citizensUnlocking Britain’s social capital

An introduction by Iain Duncan Smith MPLeader of the Conservative Party

Millions of British people give to their neighboursMillions of people throughout Britain serve asvolunteers every week – giving time to theircommunities, or to the care of vulnerable people.Millions more donate money to the fight againstpoverty, disease or ignorance at home and abroad.Within self-help groups, millions of people learn howto recover from life shocks like cancer or bereavement.Through mentoring, at-risk children are helped tobelieve in themselves – perhaps for the firsttime. Britain’s charities advance intoterritory where the state or the marketoften fears to tread – standing up forunnoticed causes and pioneering care forpeople who have been failed by one-size-fits-all systems.

All of this voluntary activity by Britain’ssixty million citizens helps to build ‘socialcapital’ – or, more simply, society. Alongsidefamily life and friendship, charitable andcommunity work underpins a strong anddecent society. Our national life wouldshrivel up if it was not watered by the valuestransmitted within society. Economic creativity, publicservice professionalism, and democracy itself are allrooted in social institutions that nurture character anda commitment to the common good. Governmentundermines such institutions at its peril.

But social institutions are being undermined by thisgovernment. The challenges facing the voluntarysector are typical of the stolen independence andbureaucratic burdens facing all social institutions.Current funding arrangements, in particular, areuprooting charities from their foundational missionsand their local volunteer and support bases.

Conservative ambitions for the voluntary andcommunity sector‘Sixty Million Citizens’ presents an ambitiousalternative vision for the voluntary and communitysector. This Paper seeks to address the real threat posedto the sector’s diversity and independence. The Paperproposes that an increasing share of the publicinvestment that the sector receives should be used toencourage a reconnection with its long-termstakeholders. This will be essential if the sector is toretain the spirit of innovation that inspires its diverseprovision of social care and its potential as a major

provider of high-quality public services.Proposals in this Green Paper would greatly simplify

the fundseeking process and simultaneously stopWhitehall’s attempts to micro-manage the sector’swork. Reforms such as those put forward for thenational lottery, and the suggestion of a big increase inmatched funding awards, would redirect the attentionof charity fundraisers to the values and concerns of localpeople and their communities. A proposed right toassume management, and then ownership, under-usedlocal assets could drive the emergence of entrepreneuror community-led centres of service provision. Theproposed cadre of ‘Bureaucracy Busters’ would helpnew charities cut through government bureaucracy andthe ‘Unfair Competition Test’ would protect existingcharities from being elbowed aside by the government’sown rushed start-ups.

All of the proposed policies that emerge from theconsultation process would be monitored by an ‘Officeof Civil Society’ at the heart of government. Reportingto a Cabinet Minister this Office would protect thesector’s essential qualities from ham-fisted governmentinitiatives. It will begin operating immediately - inshadow form. It will process responses to this GreenPaper from the voluntary sector - and other interestedgroups, including colleagues in local government.

Protecting Britain’s social ecologyBritain’s sixty million citizens will never get a fair deal ifstate and market fundamentalists are allowed totrample upon the soil more properly and effectivelycultivated by families, faith communities and otherpeople-sized institutions. These institutions areessential to the Conservative Party’s doublecommitment that no-one will be left behind and no-one held back. This Green Paper is the latest stage inthe deepening Conservative commitment to unlock thepotential of civil society and its sixty million members.

3

Recognising the strengths and weaknessesof current government policy

During the Conservative Party’s consultations withrepresentatives of the voluntary and social enterprisesectors the strengths and weaknesses of Labour’s approachhave become much clearer.

Conservatives have no intention of undoing thosemeasures that have benefited the sector. Conservativeswelcome the principles enshrined within the Compactbetween the sector and government (despite its veryuneven implementation). And Conservatives supportmost of the proposed reforms to charity law and hope thatthe Government will soon find parliamentary time tointroduce them.

But the Conservative Party’s extensive - and stillcontinuing - consultations with the voluntary andcommunity sector, have also discovered dissatisfactionwith:

* the lack of trust in the sector betrayed by the government’sattempts to micromanage the sector’s work and by the focus onshort-term grants and contracts;* the unfairnesses faced by the voluntary sector when, forexample, competing with local authorities for public sectorcontracts;* the sham nature of many government consultations;* the red tape that is choking diversity and innovation withinthe sector;* the lack of high-level representation of voluntary sector issueswithin government and the failure of the alreadyoverburdened Home Office to give the sector adequateattention;* the poor access to funding and other opportunities for smaller

charities – particularly those that are led by ethnic minorities,that are faith-based or that adopt innovative (but potentiallymore successful) approaches.

Fostering trust and accountability in thesector

Despite its rhetoric to the contrary, this Governmentfavours a command-and-control approach to povertyreduction and community regeneration. TheConservative approach to opportunity and accountabilitywill be very different.

Government bureaucrats, who are the architects ofmany of the failed approaches to community renewal andpublic service delivery, will not oversee the ConservativeParty’s approach to the sector.

Not only is their track record poor, politicians andbureaucrats rarely have much stake in the long-termsuccess of the schemes they initiate. They move on tooquickly to new portfolios. They rarely live in the areastheir schemes target and so have little understanding ofhow their ideas translate into practice.

At the heart of the new Conservative approach to thevoluntary and community sector will be (1) greater trustin self-regulatory mechanisms and (2) increased account-ability through stakeholders such as donors, localcommunities and service users:

Conservatives will seek opportunities to invest in self-regulatory mechanisms, by cutting bureaucracy in theremote, committee-based approach to grant disbursement thatis currently so dominant. Competitive self-regulatorymechanisms will be judged through systems of accountabilitythat the sector has itself helped to develop. Government

The principles of thisGreen Paper“The alternative to a bigger state is not, as the Left unthinkingly suggest, a lonelyindividualism. The centralised state and Darwinian individualism are, in fact,natural accomplices in the undermining of society. Both cut people loose from theinstitutions that provide identity and personal security. The real alternative to abigger state is a stronger society. Chris Patten once talked of a smaller state andbigger citizens. Government should be focused on strengthening the naturalinstitutions of society - and not replacing or undermining them.”

> Iain Duncan Smith, September 2002

4

departments will still have the right and duty to undertaketough and intensive audits of these self-regulatory regimes butsuch inspections will be occasional or in response to realsuspicions of abuse.

Too many NGOs are tied down by unaccountable andexploitative relationships with local, national and suprana-tional government. In response, and to increase accounta-bility, we will develop mechanisms that redirect the sectortowards its stakeholders. By stakeholders we mean: (1) thepeople who voluntarily give the sector time and money; (2) thelocal communities which charities seek to serve and build; and(3) the people who use or depend upon the sector’s work. Thesignpost policy ideas under the second theme of this GreenPaper – ‘Funds should increasingly follow the choices of people- not politicians’ – would help achieve this.

An evolutionary approach to voluntary andcommunity sector policy

Many of the challenges facing our nation could hardly bemore urgent. But Conservatives are well aware thatrushed action is rarely effective action. The more radicalmeasures that emerge from the next two years ofintensive consultation with the sector will be thoroughlytested. The public sector has sometimes been damaged bybrutal and far-reaching reforms that looked good onpaper but did not work in practice. The same must nothappen to the voluntary and community sector.

The Conservative approach will preserve what worksand our programmes will expand as and when theysucceed, with success defined not by politicians but by thepeople and groups who simply cannot afford any morefailed social policy.

Protecting the distinctive qualities of thevoluntary and community sector

Conservatives want to enable the voluntary andcommunity sector to have a much bigger role in fightingpoverty, rebuilding community and improving publicservice delivery. The sector’s levels of popular partici-pation, its diversity and its record of innovation meanthat it has much to contribute to the common good. Themechanisms through which a Conservative Governmentwould invite greater voluntary sector involvement will notundermine these essential qualities. Conservative policywould not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Thesignpost policies contained in this Green Paper areintended to protect five virtues within the sector that aresummarised below. They can be remembered by theacronym ‘VALID’ – standing for volunteerism, altruism,localism, independence and diversity:

Volunteerism: The volunteering of time, expertise andmoney is one of the great strengths of Britain’s voluntary andpublic sectors. Volunteers can provide one-to-one care in waysthat are impossible for paid workers with heavy caseloads.Volunteers work on a human scale; addressing personal needsand circumstances. Even the most professionally-basedvoluntary organisations benefit from the engagement anddevelopment of volunteers. Volunteer involvement enriches anorganisation by bringing in new thinking and communityconnections.

Altruism: Though the unselfish desire to better the lot ofothers is by no means absent from either the public or privatesectors, it is most apparent and important in the voluntarysector. Altruism motivates voluntary organisations to serve thecommon good. It is altruism that gives voluntary groups apurpose beyond themselves, and is an antidote to self-perpet-uating bureaucracy.

Localism: Whether large or small, many of the mostinnovative and effective voluntary organisations are rooted inthe communities from which they draw support and to whichthey give service. Local voluntary organisations build acommunity’s capacity and solidarity. Their community rootsalso enable them to spot challenges that are too new or small-scale to appear on the government’s radar.

Independence: Because of their distinctive mission andcharacter, voluntary organisations provide public life withforms of service and community that are unmatched by thepublic and commercial sectors. That distinctiveness can onlyflourish when voluntary organisations remain independent ofpolitical pressures and market forces. In resourcing thevoluntary sector it is vital that independence of mission andcharacter is protected.

Diversity: Distinctiveness between the sectors, should bematched by distinctiveness within the voluntary sector. Thepublic sector tends to be shaped by politics and the privatesector by market forces, but the voluntary sector can drawupon a much broader range of inspirations. A diversevoluntary sector – not least through its advocacy of otherwiseoverlooked causes - is also an essential component ofdemocracy. Public funding and charitable relief shouldembrace the diversity of religious and secular worldviews.

5

This Green Paper is not a complete guide to how the nextConservative government will unlock the nation’s socialcapital. But over the next fourteen pages it proposes six clearthemes for the Conservative Party’s evolving agenda for thevoluntary, community and social enterprise sectors. Thepaper does not contain manifesto commitments but signpost proposals are made for each policy theme.

(1) FUNDSEEKINGA simpler, fairer deal for fundseekers;

(2) ACCOUNTABILITYFunds should follow the choices of people - not politicians;

(3) VOLUNTEERINGUnlocking the skills and dedication of volunteers;

(4) REGULATIONGovernment must work for charities – not charities forgovernment;

(5) MISSIONSocial entrepreneurs – not government bureaucrats – shoulddrive community regeneration;

(6) REPRESENTATIONThe ‘sixty million citizens’ agenda deserves a champion withinthe Cabinet.

Six Conservativepolicy themes

6

Summary of signpostpolicy proposals

(1) A single application form for fundseekersaccessing Whitehall (page 9).

(2) A one-stop website promoting funding opportu-nities from Whitehall and related public agencies(page 9).

(3) Funding passports for voluntary groupsbelonging to accredited umbrella organisations orwho have already been approved by oneWhitehall department (page 9).

(4) Compensation for voluntary groups thatreceive very late payment from government (page9).

(5) ‘Charity choice’ for Lottery players (page 11).

(6) Right for community organisations to assumeownership of local government and other publicsector assets as ‘Community Asset Trusts’ (page11).

(7) Option for recipients to gift universal statebenefits directly to good causes (page 11).

(8) Greater use of matched funding arrangements– particularly to help poorer communitiesestablish community endowments (page 11).

(9) Introduction of an ‘Unfair Competition Test’ tostop government usurping existing voluntaryprojects (page 12).

(10) Fair treatment for faith-based organisationsand the introduction of a right to a non-religious‘care option’ for people in need (page 12).

(11) Tax relief for donations to collection boxesand other spontaneous giving (page 12).

(12) Payment of volunteer bounty to charitiesaddressing high priority social needs (page 15).

(13) A non-governmental Volunteers’ AwardsProgramme to recognise exceptional voluntaryeffort (page 15).

(14) Introduction of Bureaucracy Busters to helpstart-up and other charities navigate and reformthe government bureaucracy (page 17).

(15) A system of ‘Mission Reward’ to redirect theflow of public money and assets to communityregeneration entrepreneurs (page 19).

(16) Establishment of an Office of Civil Society to deliver the ‘sixty million citizens’ agenda (page 21).

7

Through a variety of innovative measuresConservatives would progressively depoliticisemore and more funding decisions – breaking theunhealthy link between the political process andmany NGOs. Increasingly public funding wouldflow towards causes that enjoy the support ofthree crucial groups of stakeholders: (1) donorsor volunteers; (2) members of localcommunities; and (3) service users.

Grant-making (and the award of service contracts) shouldcontinue to be an important way for government to fundthe voluntary and community sector. Such funding isparticularly important for so-called ‘Cinderella’ servicesthat are unlikely to enjoy reliable popular support andthat need long-term funding streams. But grant-basedmechanisms can still be reformed so that they are lessbureaucratic.

In our reforming efforts, Conservatives will buildupon the principles in the Compact on relations betweengovernment and the voluntary sector. We share thesector’s disappointment at its uneven application; partic-ularly at local government level.

We are also aware of the discrimination that faces thesector when it is, for example, competing with otherpublic agencies in bidding for public sector contracts. Wewill undertake a thorough review of contractualarrangements in order to understand the extent ofcurrent unfairnesses.

"Many charities spend hours providinginformation to one GovernmentDepartment that they've alreadyprovided to other parts ofGovernment. This duplication is ahuge waste of time that could be givento the underlying compassionate workof charities."

Angela Sarkis,Consultant to the voluntary and community sector

"Charities welcome the increasingopportunities to work in partnershipwith the State but, as the Governmenthas recognised, there must beconsistent implementation at locallevel. Councils and Primary CareTrusts, in particular, need furtherencouragement to involve the sector inplanning, to share risk equitably, tomake a fair contribution to charities'core costs and to maintain a stablepolicy framework which enables theirvoluntary sector partners to investwith confidence."

David Senior, Action Planning

1 / FUNDSEEKERS

A simpler, fairer deal forfundseekers

8

Signpost proposals

A single application form across Whitehall departmentswould reduce all parties’ transactional costs. This simpli-fication would also reduce the tendency of the Whitehallbureaucracy to micro-manage the processes through whichfundseekers address social challenges. Therefore, such aform would underpin the Conservative aim for a moreresults-based approach to awarding grants.

A website promoting all opportunities for funding fromWhitehall and related public agencies would provide aone-stop portal for fundseekers. The very process ofcreating such a transparent portal would encouragedepartments to pool and simplify funding streams forsimilar activities. The historical inability of Whitehall todeliver this oft-promised mechanism illustrates theinefficiency, complexity and duplication of the state’sdealings with the voluntary and community sector.

Application processes generally have two mainfunctions. Firstly, they need to establish thecompetence, capacity and propriety of applicants.Secondly, applicants that successfully meet these initialtests then compete with one another to establish whowould make best use of the available funds.

A presumption of competence and eligibility forfundseekers belonging to approved voluntary sectorumbrella groups could be introduced to simplify the firststage. In order to become ‘approved’ – umbrella groupswould have to demonstrate robust and objectivemembership criteria. Crucially, such groups would alsoneed to show that they were not creating unfair ‘barriersto entry’ and that new voluntary groups could – throughthem – ‘passport’ to the second competitive stage of thepublic funding process.

In general, fundseekers that had satisfied onegovernment department of their competence andcapacity should not have to duplicate work whenapplying to another department.

Government departments which are very late indisbursing grants to the not-for-profit sector could beobliged to pay compensation. Compensationarrangements would focus the minds of governmentdepartments on their contractual and moral responsi-bilities to voluntary sector grantees.

>>A single application form >>Funding passports

>>Compensation for latepayment of grants

>>One-stop fundseeking

9

Through a variety of innovative measuresConservatives would progressively depoliticisemore and more funding decisions – breaking theunhealthy link between the political process andmany NGOs. Increasingly public funding wouldflow towards causes that enjoy the support ofthree crucial groups of stakeholders: (1) donorsor volunteers; (2) members of localcommunities; and (3) service users.

We want to reverse the growing tendency of manycharities to look to the state for their funding. Whenpoliticians, or their bureaucracies, have direct control ofpublic funds those causes that are politically-well-connected have an unfair advantage. A fairer outcomewould be achieved by stakeholders such as:

(1) the people who voluntarily give time and money to goodcauses;(2) the local communities that charities seek to serve; and(3) the people who use or depend upon the voluntary sector’swork.

"Community foundations believe it isessential to help donors buildendowed funds that help them addressthe local issues and causes that are dearto their heart. Communityfoundations are also ideally placed toact as vehicles to assist charities growtheir own endowment and so enablegreater sustainability and diversity infunding support."

Marion Webster,Director of the Community Foundation Network

“There is now a growing body ofexperience among development trustsand others that transfer of under-usedassets to community organisationscreates strong, self-help institutions. Itachieves multiple benefits for localpeople - economic, social andenvironmental - thus creating wealthin communities, and keeping it there.”

Steve Wyler, Director, Development Trust Association

2 / ACCOUNTABILITY

Funds should follow thechoices of people - notpoliticians

10

Signpost proposals

There is increasing concern that National Lotteryfunding for good causes is becoming politicised. Agrowing proportion is being taken to pay forGovernment projects which have traditionally been paidfor by the taxpayer. Other awards have been made tohighly controversial causes. The result is that the publichas lost confidence that the Lottery is being used tosupport genuinely good causes. Our green paper putsforwards two ideas for reform:

* We will examine ways of giving players a greater say overwhich causes benefit from Lottery funds, perhaps by enablingthem to specify a local charity on the Lotto ticket or byturning it into a gift token that can be given to a local charityof the player’s choice.* We will examine ways of allowing players to share prizemoney with charities of their choice in return for a betterchance of winning.

The first proposal would give Lotto players a choiceabout which good causes benefit from their money. Thesecond proposal would increase choice and the totalshare of Lottery sales revenues going to charities.

This Green Paper proposes that people in receipt ofuniversal benefits should be given the option of donatingbenefits - such as the state pension or child benefit - tocharity.

In order to make this an attractive and value-for-money option for the individual and the taxpayer thisgifting of benefits would have to take place for aminimum period. The individual’s gift to a charitywould then be topped up by the government with fulltax relief.

We intend to consult on the terms of this possiblegifting arrangement. What is a reasonable minimumgifting period? Should a gifted child benefit have tosupport a charity working with children or a disabilitypayment to a cause helping others with disabilities orshould the scope of gifting be freer? Should the benefitgift go to a fund for others to distribute or could it begiven directly to a nominated cause?

Conservatives would introduce a right for communityorganisations or entrepreneurs to first manage and thenassume ownership of under-used public sector assets suchas community halls, parks or vacant land.

This right of asset transfer would be subject to basiccompetency tests and a satisfactory declaration of howthe asset would be open to full community use. Theright would include not only the underlying asset butmight also include an income stream proportionate tothe liability cost of the asset to its current owner (eg alocal authority).

On successful completion of an initial managementcontract (success criteria being defined by independentassessors) legal ownership of the asset could betransferred to what might be called Community AssetTrusts.

The asset(s) could be used by CATs as security forborrowing and accelerate a change of culture withincommunities from dependency on others to a culture ofsocial entrepreneurship.

Once individual CATs proved themselves to be bothcompetent and inclusive they could apply to manage anddeliver other local public services - eventually runningmedical centres and schools for local neighbourhoods.

CAT status could be awarded to existing organi-sations that met CAT criteria without, for example,requiring them to change their legal identity.

Where appropriate, government money should beincreasingly used to match - and hence encourage - othercharitable or private forms of giving. The generosity ofmatched funding awards could take into account eachcommunity’s wealth and resources.

Endowments such as those built up and supervisedby the Community Foundation Network are a partic-ularly successful way of local communities buildingindependent and long-term sources of funding for goodcauses. Matched funding awards could be used to leverthe start up, or growth, of endowments serving partic-ularly hard-pressed neighbourhoods.

>>‘Charity choice’ for Lotteryplayers

>>Gifting of universal benefits

>>Matched funding focused onendowments for poorer areas

>>Community Asset Trusts

11

“Faith works. Across the UK,thousands of local churches - large andsmall - are consistently deliveringsustained care for the young, theelderly, the lonely, the forgotten andthe vulnerable. A wise government isone, which seeks to work proactivelywith churches, Christian organisationsand other faith groups, by creatinglegislation that enhances their role -rather than hampers it.”

Steve Chalke, Oasis Trust

Britain’s faith communities play a disproportionate rolein tackling many social challenges but their basis of faithis often a reason for their exclusion from public fundingopportunities.

The proposed Office of Civil Society (see theme six)would explore ways of ensuring fair treatment of faith-based charities (including in employment practices) andalso protect service users’ right to have an alternative toa faith-based social care provider.

Crowding out behaviour by government that would notbe tolerated in the commercial sphere should be equallyunacceptable in the voluntary and community sector.There have been recent examples of not-for-profitenterprises being damaged – even closed – bygovernment-sponsored initiatives.

Conservatives propose an Unfair Competition Testthat will protect not-for-profits from being usurped byhandsomely-funded government initiatives. Unlessthere is an overriding public interest in a new state-ledmodel of delivery the Test would require development ofinitiatives within the not-for-profit sector.

The people who collect money through, for example,collection boxes give very generously of their timeand deserve greater recognition. That is whyConservatives will investigate the costs and mechanics of a presumption of automatic tax relief on all suchspontaneous giving.

Reducing the tax burden on charities andencouraging giving remain priorities for the ConservativeParty. Apart from the proposal of recognition of spontaneousgiving, it would not be sensible to propose a comprehensivetax agenda this far in advance of the next General Election.The charitable sector is one of the Conservative Party’spriorities, however, and we are aware of the sector’sdisappointment at changes that Labour has made to ACT, inparticular.

Conservatives will be consulting on the most effectiveways of advancing charitable tax reform and we are awarethat the sector is particularly interested in measures thatmight incentivise greater corporate responsibility and long-term giving.

>>An ‘Unfair Competition Test’

>>Tax relief for spontaneousgiving

>>Double protection forfaith-based organisations andthose in need of care

12

“In his Leader's speech to the Scottish Party ConferenceIain Duncan Smith got to the heart of this state-societydistinction between the Labour and Conservativeparties. "While Labour trusts the state, Conservatives trustpeople," he said. "When Labour thinks of community - it thinksof politicians, committees and taskforces. When Conservativesthink of community we think of the family, local schools,charities, and places of worship."

The communities referred to by Iain include a widersociety - a society that encompasses the professions,trade unions and universities. These are associations andinstitutions that flourish when they enjoy independencefrom the state. Society is characterised by a complexnetwork of professional, voluntary and involuntaryrelationships. Professional relationships like a GP'srelationship with his or her patients. Voluntaryrelationships like a mentor's care of an at-risk youth.And then involuntary - or covenantal - relationships likea mother's love for her son.

Society - and the relationships that hold societytogether - can be sustained by the state or they can beignored and undermined by the state.

To sustain means to support from below. That is theConservative vision: government helping to sustain asociety that is a rich tapestry of active citizens, families,places of worships, dedicated professions andindependent associations. Government must againbecome the servant of society. Only then will we be ableto realise the mission that Iain Duncan Smith has giventhe Conservative party: the renewal of society.”

Rt Hon OLIVER LETWIN MPExtract from ‘Sustainability and Society’, July 2002

“The Chief Rabbi has challenged us to break out of thestale market versus state arguments and think morefreely: "The Right may blame the State. The Left may blame themarket. But neither diagnosis is correct. The road we have begunto travel, of economic affluence and spiritual poverty, of evermore powerful states and markets and ever weaker families andcommunities, cannot but end in tragedy."

The fact is that the old policy levers are not enough.Hundreds of thousands of people living in hard-pressedcommunities are not being touched by rising stockmarkets, government initiatives and technologicalinnovations. They lack the basic skills and confidence totake the opportunities presented by our times. Theyneed a deeper more personal care that cannot beprovided by the market or the state.

The way ahead must surely be the revival of all thosepeople-sized institutions which stand between theindividual and the state. These are the institutions thatprovide people with personal care and challenge. Theyhelp all of us meet life's greatest challenges. Theyprovide us with our identity and a sense of belonging.

We want to see stronger local communities andnetworks of neighbourliness. That is what society is allabout. We have been busy preaching the virtues of civilsociety to the old Soviet Bloc whilst at the same time ourown civil society has been enfeebled. It has sufferedfrom twin attacks from an intrusive state and theremorseless spread of commercial values into everycorner of life.

I have long believed that the future for our party is asthe party which stands for not just the individual on hisor her own but the individual in voluntary associationwith others. Individuals need not just work togetherthrough the state or through a commercial enterprise.They can also do so through all the rich variety of civicinstitutions which have historically been one of themost distinctive features of our country.”

DAVID WILLETTS MPExtract from ‘The Reality of Poverty’, February 2002

Conservatives and voluntary society (1)

13

Birmingham West London

Volunteers greatly enrich the voluntary andpublic sectors.

Volunteers – particularly when properlytrained and empowered – bring enormousenergy and vitality to the personal care ofvulnerable people.

This Green Paper proposes rewardinginnovative and locally-inspired volunteertraining programmes.

Conservatives strongly believe in the inherent value ofvolunteering as a leading dimension of full citizenship. Itshould, therefore, be encouraged for its intrinsic value –as well as for its instrumental usefulness to both thepublic and voluntary sectors.

We do not want to devalue the importance of a stillmore professional voluntary sector; nor the need for itsemployees to be properly paid and enjoy full pensionsprovision. Nonetheless, increased rates of volunteeringare essential if we are to build a culture of activecitizenship and if we are to expand the sector’s capacity toreach vulnerable people.

Many people struggling with addiction, loneliness orlow self-esteem desperately need the reliable care ofanother human being and that cannot easily be providedby overloaded caseworkers. Conservatives want toencourage the voluntary and public sectors to greaterconsideration of what volunteers might bring to theirwork.

"Far-sighted voluntary organisationswill invest in volunteers. Volunteersbring new ideas to projects and helpdeepen an organisation's communityroots. Care from a volunteer often hasa much bigger impact on vulnerablepeople because of the very fact that it isfreely given."

Luke Geoghegan, Toynbee Hall

3 / VOLUNTEERING

Unlocking the skills anddedication of volunteers

14

Signpost proposals

This Green Paper proposes the creation of a volunteerbounty (to the recruiting organisation) for everyvolunteer or mentor signed up to tackle certain socialchallenges and who becomes part of an accreditedtraining programme. The value of the bounty mightvary depending upon the field of service and the qualityof the training programme.

Rather than one nationwide ‘volunteer bounty’programme a greater number of local bids forimaginative use of allocated monies could be favoured.Conservatives believe that there is particular value inprogrammes that increase the quality of existingvolunteering experiences. Cruder attempts to simplyexpand the pool of volunteers may bring less long-termand reputational gain to volunteering.

A non-governmental awards programme, analogous tothe Duke of Edinburgh scheme, could be established torecognise exceptional voluntary effort, especiallyamongst young people, with winners receiving a chequeon behalf of a nominated charity.

***

Under theme (6) – below - the need for better data on trends involunteering is acknowledged.

>>Volunteer Bounty

>>Volunteers’ Awards Programme

15

Too much of the energy of the not-for-profitsector is misdirected at working a failing system.A cadre of powerful new ‘Bureaucracy Busters’would help charities and other good causes tofirst navigate the bureaucratic jungle and theneliminate counter-productive systems andregulations.

Regulations impose huge burdens on business but theycan be even more damaging to the not-for-profit sector.

Navigating the public sector bureaucracy - itsregulatory and funding mechanisms - can be a dauntingtask for all charities, but particularly for start-ups.Relating to government can also be a huge distractionfrom the motivating mission of the charity. The work ofgood causes is frustrated by inappropriate regulations orby over-zealous and risk-averse interpretation of rules.This effect of over-zealous interpretation is hugelyunderestimated as a problem. Until civil servants face adifferent set of incentives it will be a problem that willonly intensify.

Relevant government agencies often fail tocommunicate with each other and can present not-for-profit organisations with conflicting and/ or very delayedadvice and judgements.

“As a small charity we find it verydifficult to keep up with changinggovernment regulations. It also takesa very long time to get answers fromgovernment agencies about issuesfacing our work. Often it’s not clearwhich officials or electedrepresentatives we need to be talkingto.”

Paulette Wilson, The Tabernacle School

4 / REGULATION

Government must workfor charities - notcharities for government

16

Signpost proposal

Some charities and social entrepreneurs testify to thecrucial intervention of a minister or senior civil servantin breaking a bureaucratic logjam. But many good causeslack such a contact and such useful individuals invariablymove on to new positions. The bureaucracy-busting rolethat currently tends to only come through thecultivation of a high level political connection could beinstitutionalised.

“Bureaucracy Busters” – as they might be called -would have full authority to navigate the bureaucracy for start-up charities and projects. Bureaucracy Busterswould (a) curb over-zealous application and interpretation of regulations by risk-averse officials and(b) would have the powers to require fast communication and decision-making across government departments.

But the “Bureaucracy Busters” would not just have anavigational role. They would also produce regularpublic recommendations of regulations that should beeliminated in order to simplify the work of the not-for-profit sector.

“Bureaucracy Busters” could work in teams withcharitable, business, legal and government experience.Teams would be resourced in proportion to their successin both their navigational and deregulatory roles.

>>Bureaucracy Busters

17

This Green Paper proposes turning the currentapproach to community regeneration upsidedown. Because government money is onlyavailable for tightly-defined purposes it canencourage mission creep – the diversion ofpromising community enterprises from theirstart-up goals and activities. A new system of‘Mission Reward’ would reverse this ‘missioncreep’ and direct the flow of public money andassets to social enterprises that are successfullydelivering sustainable community renewal.

Many community-based organisations struggle to growbeyond their early success. The initial enterprise that ledthem to set up a drop-in or youth centre, for example, isnever recognised or developed. They find themselvesfrustrated by a system that lacks the vision to look beyondtheir current activity and see their potential.Government funders tend to only see them as narrowservice providers rather than as enterprising,community-minded people with the potential to bringnew thinking and fresh life to other community services.Tenure insecurities also frustrate such organisations’potential - limiting options with regard to establishingtrading operations, borrowing and eligibility for certainfunding streams.

Finding that there is no public money available forthe development of their foundational mission suchgroups often find that they can only grow by chasingfunding for activities that only loosely relate to their coremission. This leads to serious problems of mission distortion– a problem severely exacerbated by the frequency withwhich government changes its own mission priorities. Agroup that reshapes itself to serve government prioritiesthen finds funding for its new identity drying up andleaving the organisation with no option but to againchase the government’s latest whim.

Funding for community regeneration must betransformed. Public funding awards and asset

"Community-based groups that have theconfidence of local people, perceivethemselves to be, routinely ignored inthe planning of government services.Governments of all political colours don'tappear to trust local people to deliverimproved services for themselves andtheir neighbours."

Sandy Weddell, Easterhouse Baptist Church

“We are now living in an enterpriseculture. This has importantimplications for the business, public andvoluntary sectors. This culture demandsa more entrepreneurial response to thepublic services. The old ideologicalresponses of many in the establishmentmust now give way to the more practicalmessage of the social entrepreneur.Many of these practitioners are nowdeveloping partnerships with thebusiness community. What matters nowto local communities is who can providethem with the best service - not which ofthe three sectors is running it. Thevoluntary sector needs to get its skates onif it is to compete in this new socialmarket place.”

Andrew Mawson,Executive Director, Community Action Network

5 / MISSION

Social entrepreneurs - notgovernment - shoulddrive regeneration

18

management strategies must reward – not control - themission of community-minded enterprises.

The aim would be to reward the mission of creativecommunity groups that sustainably deliverneighbourhood renewal and community services.Proven successes would win an escalating series ofpresumptive rights to public funding, control of publicassets, and the opportunity to improve delivery ofpublicly-funding local services.

Signpost proposal

‘Mission Reward’ status would offer a radical alternativeto the bureaucratic approach to community regenerationpursued by Labour. Community entrepreneurs -whether faith leaders, charities, headteachers, localbusiness people, housing managers or free citizens – whoearnt ‘Mission Reward’ status would become part of aholistic mechanism for tackling social need, job creationand the delivery of public services and/ or communityregeneration.

‘Mission Reward’ organisations could be accreditedby intermediary groups with practical experience ofcommunity regeneration. These accreditation agencieswould themselves receive funding in proportion to thesuccess of their client enterprises.

There would be no prescribed constitution for aorganisation seeking ‘Mission Reward’ status. It wouldnot have to meet pre-determined criteria but would needto satisfy an accredited intermediary as to:

(1) how its mission served community goals; (2) how it would be accountable to its stakeholders (a mix ofdonors, the local community and/or service users); and(3) how it would achieve a mixed and sustainable fundingportfolio .

An ascending system of ‘Mission Rewards’ could theninclude:

(a) Automatic receipt of regeneration monies and volunteerbounty awards.(b) Support from a team of Bureaucracy Busters.(c) The right to apply for ownership of a community asset orassume delivery responsibility for a public service. [Seeearlier proposal under theme two.](d) Guarantees for borrowing for capital investment.

All ‘Mission Reward’ costs could be met from existingregeneration and related budgets.

>>Mission Reward

19

A new Office of Civil Society – championed by a Cabinet minister - would champion the‘sixty million citizens’ agenda that emerges fromthis Green Paper-ledconsultation.

Over the last six years a constantly changing cast ofLabour ministers for the voluntary sector has not servedthe sector reliably. This has often meant that the sectorhas been under-represented and overlooked whenimportant initiatives are developed. It is no longeracceptable for a third-tier unit within the alreadystretched Home Office to take responsibility for coordi-nating policy. The voluntary sector is too important apart of our democracy and too central to the causes ofsocial justice, public service delivery and communitycohesion for this situation to continue.

"A key challenge facing both futuregovernments and the voluntary andcommunity sector, will be to developrobust partnerships that create boththe capacity and resources to enableVCS organisations to deliver effectivepublic services."

Campbell Robb,National Council for Voluntary Organisations

6 / REPRESENTATION

The ‘sixty millioncitizens’ agenda deservesa champion in Cabinet

20

Signpost proposal

An Office of Civil Society reporting to an existingCabinet minister would promote the agenda that willemerge from this Green Paper and the ConservativeParty’s wider consultations with the voluntary sector.

The Office would co-ordinate best practice acrossWhitehall departments and liase with local government,other public sector agencies and the commercial sectoron hot issues such as (1) the not-for-profit sector’s accessto insurance cover and (2) whether employees ofcharities providing key services should be regarded as‘key workers’ in housing allocation policy.

The Office would facilitate a greater number ofsecondments between the public and third sectors andfund pilots of innovative funding mechanisms -including voucher-based arrangements.

The Office would coordinate funding of muchneeded academic research into the extent andeffectiveness of the sector and its constituent parts. Thiswould include evaluation of the potency of alternativeapproaches to social need, the production andcompilation of information on much of the sector’sscale, trends in volunteering and detailed costcomparisons of different funding mechanisms. The factthat so much voluntary sector activity goes unrecordedoften leads to it being overlooked by policy-makers.

As a sign of the importance that the ConservativeParty attaches to this Green Paper’s agenda we intend toestablish a shadow Office of Civil Society now.Reporting to a member of the shadow cabinet thisshadow office would:

(1) oversee the consultation flowing from this paper;(2) initiate parliamentary debates on the intrinsic as well asthe instrumental value of volunteering and the voluntaryand community sector;(3) liaise with Conservatives in local government aboutimplementing elements of this agenda now; and(4) support other shadow cabinet members in theircommitment to invite the sector to play a greater role in, forexample, public service delivery and providing young peoplewith exits from the conveyor belt to crime.

PostscriptThis Green Paper does not pretend that governmentaction can restore a culture of active citizenship.People’s sense of duty to each other – to theirfamilies, neighbours and society – flows from deepreligious, cultural and historical springs.

The Conservative Party’s voluntary sector consul-tation process - that this Green Paper is a major partof - intends to find ways in which government canactively help the voluntary sector - sometimes bysimply getting out of its way. We wish to examinethe extent to which government can provide socialnetworks with opportunities and resources to grow.Resulting policies must always reinforce and protectthe ‘VALID’ qualities identified on page 5. Informulating policies - and then piloting them - ourtop priority is to avoid any ‘nationalisation’ ofcharity or of compassion.

Where others want to tell the voluntary sectorwhat to do, we want to give it the freedom andopportunity to be all that it can be. This does notabsolve politicians of responsibility. Indeed, it willtake a great deal of political will to remove theobstacles to a renewed society. Conservatives possessthat will and we hope that voluntary organisations ofall shapes and sizes will guide our efforts. Inparticular, we encourage readers to respond to thisGreen Paper and page 24 - the back page - lists thecontact points for doing so.

>>An Office of Civil Society

21

Consultations todateOver the last two years the Renewing One Nation policyteam at Conservative Central Office (founded by SirStanley Kalms) has met over one hundred represen-tatives of the voluntary, community and faith-basedsectors within Britain. It has also consulted a variety ofinternational thought-leaders in civil society policydevelopment.

Other members of the Conservative frontbench havealso been meeting with third sector leaders and trail-blazing organisations. These include:

* The involvement of poverty-fighting organisationsin the ‘One Nation Hearings’ overseen by DavidWilletts MP;* Oliver Letwin MP’s seminars with third sectorgroups helping young people escape from ‘theconveyor belt to crime’;* Charles Hendry MP’s consultations with voluntaryorganisations working with younger people;* A conference organised by John Baron MP andLiam Fox MP for volunteer organisations specialisingin healthcare; and* Caroline Spelman MP’s fora with internationaldevelopment NGOs.

Since the start of 2003 the individuals and groups (listedalphabetically below) have kindly participated in thediscussions that have immediately led up to theproduction of this Green Paper. Their freely-given timeand co-operation is greatly appreciated. All strengths inthis report are due to their wisdom and experience butthe overall responsibility for this report’s proposals restsentirely with the Conservative Party.

1. Victor Adebowale, Turning Point2. Mike Ainsworth, Prince’s Trust3. Fran Beckett, Church Urban Fund4. Andrew Billington, Jack Petchey Foundation5. Stephen Bubb, Association of Chief Executives ofVoluntary Organisations6. Clare Brooks and Marion Webster, CommunityFoundation Network7. Dr Justin Davis-Smith and Dr Steven Howlett,National Centre for Volunteering8. Bryan Dutton, Leonard Cheshire9. Stuart Etherington and Campbell Robb, NationalCouncil for Voluntary Organisations10. Diana Garnham, Association of Medical ResearchCharities

11. Luke Geoghegan, Toynbee Hall12. Baroness Hanham, former Leader of Kensingtonand Chelsea Borough Council13. Neil Jamieson, The East London CommunitiesOrganisation14. Steve Johnson and Gareth Kingston, Advice UK15. Harbinder Kaur and Steve Wyler, DevelopmentTrust Association16. Michael Lake, Help the Aged17. Robert Leader, St Dunstan’s18. John Low, RNID19. Andrew Mawson, Community Action Network20. Ed Mayo, New Economics Foundation21. Denise Murphy, Retired & Senior VolunteerProgramme22. Foster Murphy, Abbeyfield23. Nathan Oley, Faithworks (Oasis Trust)24. Kate Parminter, Council for the Protection ofRural England25. Bob Reitemeier, The Children’s Society26. Eve Richardson, National Council for Hospiceand Specialist Palliative Care Services27. Angela Sarkis, consultant to the voluntary andcommunity sector28. David Senior, Action Planning29. Rev Michael Shaw, John Grooms30. Joanna Thompson, Care Centres Network.

22

“The voluntary and charitable sector play a vital role inservice provision in this country and abroad. In my roleas Shadow Secretary of State for InternationalDevelopment I have been privileged to visit charitableand aid agency projects in India, Pakistan and parts ofAfrica. Each time I am struck by the success of theseprojects and the commitment given to enable localpeople to become self sufficient and to pull themselvesout of the endless poverty cycle. But more always needsto be done.

In the House of Commons I have hosted two forumsfor aid agencies on fair trade and humanitariancontingency planning for Iraq to find out what is neededfrom the experts and people who have real experience ofworking in those countries we are trying to help. It isthese organisations who are most efficient at deliveringaid and getting it direct to the people. It is their workand experience which helps formulate our policy ongetting aid quickly and efficiently to those most in need.Conservatives are committed to contributing more ofour aid budget through the charitable sector.”

CAROLINE SPELMAN MP

Only very strong people can overcome adversity alone.Too many people who get into difficulties in today'sScotland have nowhere to turn for help. Thesedifficulties may be of the person's own making or theymay be a product of misfortune. But whether thedifficulty is drug addiction or criminal behaviour orwhether it is bereavement or sickness - we need to domore to prevent a life shock from becoming a life crisis.

All over Scotland there are charities and goodneighbours who are helping a family deal with a debtproblem or who are mentoring an at-risk schoolchild.There are faith-based groups and self-support groupsproviding friendship to the very elderly or comfortingthose suffering from terminal illness.

It is often the smaller, locally-rooted groups that arethe most innovative and personally compassionate.They are often led by local people who understand localneeds. They are values-based. They see people asneighbours rather than as clients. These groups tend tobe peopled by men and women who have deepexperience of the problems they are tackling.

These networks of good neighbours are not equippedto meet every social challenge but too often they are shutout from current bureaucratic and politically correctfunding arrangements. That must change. A priorityfor Scotland's Conservatives will be to channel financialand other resources to the good neighbours ofScotland...

Only increasingly professionalised groups with closeconnections with the Labour establishment succeed inwinning significant grants. These professionalisedgroups have an important role to play but we must notneglect the innovative, localised and values-basedcompassion I want to see flourish.

DAVID McLETCHIE MSPExtract from ‘New weapons in the war against poverty’,

May 2002

Conservatives and voluntary society (2)

Glasgow Pakistan

Responding to‘Sixty millioncitizens’If you would like to respond to the proposals orphilosophy of this Green Paper please do so before theend of August 2003.

Please use any of the following contact points:

The Office of Civil SocietyThe Conservative Party32 Smith SquareLondon SW1P 3HH

020 7 984 8160 (t)

civilsociety@conservatives.com

Further copies of the report can be downloaded fromwww.conservatives.com

no-one left behindno-one held back