A wide range of experts have told MSPs that the unelected Crown Estate Commissioners should no longer have any role in Scotland.

Figures from politics and broadcasting, academia, community organisations, a think-tank and members of the public have united to tell MSPs they need to act now to bring about a historic change. They believe that after decades of political rhetoric about tackling what was once described as the worst kind of unelected, upper-class club, there is now the chance to bring the responsibility for the management and revenues of all Scotland’s Crown property rights, particularly the seabed, under the full jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament. They believe it is a first step to giving local communities greater economic control and therefore benefit.

MSPs on the Scotland Bill Committee are currently scrutinising legislation the Scottish Government is proposing in response to the Calman Commission’s recommendations on how to beef up Scottish devolution.

The bill includes a proposal that the Chancellor appoints a Crown Estate Commissioner (CEC) to represent the interests of Scotland. This is described by Reverend Peter D Thomson as “an utterly inadequate sop to Scottish opinion, and should be rejected out of hand” in his submission to the committee. He is one of those demanding the abolition of the Commissioners, described by some as “an undemocratic anachronism”.

This would leave the Scottish Government to take control, particularly of the seabed, at a time of multibillion-pound investment in offshore wind, wave and tidal power projects. In his submission to the committee, the leading authority on Scottish common land, Andy Wightman, says this could be achieved easily by amending The Crown Estate Act 1961 to state that it no longer applies to Scotland.

Among those who endorse Mr Wightman’s proposal in submission is the acclaimed Highland historian Professor Jim Hunter. In his submission Labour’s former UK Energy Minister Brian Wilson tells the committee: “It seems to me that this represents a genuine opportunity to tackle an issue on which a great deal of political rhetoric has been expounded, without anything changing.”

Writer, broadcaster and journalist Lesley Riddoch also backs Mr Wightman. She says if Scotland is to lose its unenviable reputation as “the best wee feudal country in the world”, control of its natural resources must be freed. “It seems to me the quickest way of starting a change process is for the Scottish Government to take over the administration of CEC rights immediately and the simplest means of achieving this is to remove the CEC from any responsibilities in Scotland,” she said.

The Scottish Islands Federation also endorses that approach and not just because of offshore renewables. “This would also provide the trust ports and harbours in Scotland with full control of the seabed, which they currently lack, thus giving them the ability to plan their own future,” they said.

The think-tank Reform Scotland believes it would allow the Scottish Parliament to use offshore renewables as “a driver of future economic prosperity”.

Community Land Scotland, which represents Scotland’s community landowners such as Assynt, Eigg and Gigha, also believes coastal areas should be solely the responsibility of Holyrood and that revenues should remain within Scotland.

The Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster has launched an Inquiry into the Scotland Bill

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/scottish-affairs-committee/news/scotland-bill/

Call for evidence by 31 January

Scotland Bill page at UK Parliament is at

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/scotland.html

Extract from Jericho Road by Jess Steele, DTA

“On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will only be an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s history “ – Martin Luther King

The Coalition Government is busy drafting legislation to ‘give’ a series of rights to local communities. After many years of the rhetoric of ‘community empowerment’, the cliché that ‘local people know best’ and the fundamental failure to do anything practical about it, this new language of community rights has to be welcomed. Whether it has any more impact than its predecessor is yet to be seen. But we will not wait to see if they mean it this time: we must make it true.

In the real unequal world, where we need to exalt the valleys and lower the mountains1, rights are not legislated by government. The Equal Pay Act did not close the pay gap, anti discrimination laws do not end prejudice. In his Civil Rights Message on the day the Alabama National Guardsman were called to enforce the rights of two black students to attend the university, JFK said that Congress had to act but that civil rights would only be achieved by the human decency of every American citizen. He also famously acknowledged that “those

who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Given the parallel shock-and-awe of spending cuts, welfare raiding and mass asset disposal his words are more relevant to us than they have been for twenty five years.

Community anchors – independent, neighbourhood-based organisations led by local people – have a long history and an impressive geographical spread across the United Kingdom. They are committed to social justice through collective social action, creating local wealth and keeping it local, building resilience for themselves and throughout their communities. This is a well-networked movement of bi-focal organisations that care about and support each other across the country as well as dedicating passionate energy to their own fine-grain patch and its people.

This movement is the foundation of the Big Society, the good society, the Great Society. It is collective local action that will transform the Jericho Road, and it is the bonds between localities that will make sure this is not an isolated right won by the few, but a control-shift that genuinely enables people in any neighbourhood, however high their mountains or low their valleys, to get on with what needs doing. This is not a bid for power-over, for ‘communities at the helm’ of big budget regeneration – we know that time is over, for what it was worth. This is a demand for power-to, for groups of local people to be allowed to make our own change, using whatever resources we can collectively marshal. The challenges ahead are undeniably frightening and the opportunities are hard to grasp before they slip away. We need co-ordinated practical actions across a range of fields, and we also need a clear way of agreeing and explaining what we are trying to achieve.

To find full article and others in the publication click here

Maurice Glasman still seems surprised as he sits in his cosy, ramshackle apartment perched above a clothes store in bohemian north London. The Jewish academic-cum-community organiser was astounded when he was offered a peerage, out of the blue, by Ed Miliband in the new year honours list.

“I was completely shocked,” he reflects. “I was out having coffee with a friend when I had the call, so I immediately rang my wife, who took some convincing that I wasn’t just making it up for a laugh.” He adds: “Ed told me: ‘I just really like what you’re doing and want you to keep doing it.'” The unlikely ennoblement of this university lecturer, 49, passed largely unnoticed in the press. A peerage for Julian Fellowes, creator of Downton Abbey, and a damehood for Lady Antonia Fraser made more headlines. But a few weeks on, Glasman’s admission to the upper house is beginning to excite interest among leading figures at Westminster, who believe it may prove to be a significant development in British political life in 2011.

Glasman was moderately well known in Labour circles in the capital thanks to his ground-breaking work with London Citizens – an alliance of faith institutions, universities, schools and trade unions that he brought together to run community projects. Suddenly, his political philosophy of local activism is being touted by some as Labour’s answer – its possible trump card – to David Cameron’s “big society”. Others in Labour go further, saying it could even offer the kernel of the “big idea” that Miliband is desperately seeking to define his leadership.

The Glasman creed is that Labour – real, traditional, pre-1945 Labour, as he would put it – is the only party with the values and beliefs that can make the “big society” work. Unlike the Tories, whose vision relies on a volunteer spirit rising up when institutions get off people’s backs, he has a different idea – one he says is in some respects “more conservative than the Conservatives”. He wants to foster a “Labour big society” based on ideas of “family, faith and the flag” and nurtured through cherished local institutions – everything from churches to post offices, banks, hospitals, schools and football clubs.

“At the moment the Conservatives have got an idea of a society built on volunteers,” he says. “It has got to be much more than that.” He cites football clubs as a key example of where local loyalties and spirit can be reinforced – and local banks as institutions that can inspire economic activity – if their governance is reformed. “Football clubs are a form of magic and a form of belonging, of hope, of glory, but fans are just being exploited by venture capitalists from a thousand miles away. It offends against the sacred sense of belonging. Ideally I would like to see the Labour party taking very strong support for mutual ownership of football clubs. I would like to see the endowment of local banks so there is regional capital and regional economies.”

He reels off long lists of academics and political thinkers, from Aristotle to the lesser-known Hungarian intellectual Karl Polanyi, as influences. The latter, he says, taught him that capitalism, though a force for good if controlled, could also be a menace if not. Labour now had to “rediscover” the need to tame the markets as part of its mission to make individuals feel valuable again.

“The logic of capitalism is to turn human beings and their natural environment into commodities,” he says. “The logic of democracy, and particularly the Labour movement, is to protect the human status of the person.”

But the biggest influence was his mother, Rivi, who died two years ago, leaving him struck with grief and in despair about his life. “She was very conservative Labour with a very strong commitment to work, faith, country, very patriotic. England for her was the country that saved the Jews from the Nazis; alone in Europe we survived. She was a monarchist. She was very religious, very radical. She thought the country was very unfair. She was very tied to Labour. Labour was the great hope of working people. I didn’t know what to do with my grief when she died.” A close friend told him to honour her with what he did. “So I began to re-engage with Labour.”

There cannot be many community activists with such an impressive intellectual hinterland. Glasman directs the faith and citizenship programme at London Metropolitan University and his shelves are stacked with analyses of the Enclosure Acts to discussions of the Torah. An alumnus of the European University Institute in Florence, he spent the year the Berlin Wall fell studying the crisis of state socialism and its aftermath. The book that came out of that thesis is entitled Unnecessary Suffering: Managing Market Utopia.

Glasman believes that before Labour can move on it has to learn the lessons about the failures of state socialism. He is for localism and “bottom-up politics”, as opposed to top-down Whitehall diktat – and if that sounds a bit like David Cameron it is meant to. Affronted by the coalition’s evocation of a smaller, cheaper public sector, Glasman wants to outdo compassionate conservatism with a Labour vision of “the common good”. He likes to talk of “Blue Labour” – a small-c conservative version of socialism bound together by strong ethical glue.

He objects to the idea that it was New Labour that was the problem – arguing that the party started leaving people like his mother behind after 1945, when the National Health Service and the welfare state were created. It gradually became elitist, managerial, bureaucratic in its style and thinking. Socialism became statism. Labour became “nasty”.

“It became cynical because it was about a certain view of what was realistic; it was moralistic in the sense that if you did not agree with their discourse you were opposing progress. It was disempowering because of its administrative form. It was hostile to human association because it was about every individual entitlement, not people doing things together.”

The nadir came in the ghastly encounter between Gordon Brown and Labour supporter Gillian Duffy on the campaign trail in Rochdale last May, when the prime minister angrily dismissed Duffy’s views on immigration as “bigoted”. Glasman believes Brown’s dismissal of Duffy summed up Labour’s internal crisis. “Labour had reached a situation under Brown where most of the people in the party hated one another and they hated people outside the party too.”

To re-emerge as a viable political force, Glasman believes Labour has to get the Gillian Duffys back onside and re-engender the idea that people enjoy working together for the public good. It will do so, he says, not by promising to deliver a more just, equal society from the commanding heights of Westminster, but by standing with people in their local struggles.

What kinds of struggles does he have in mind? He cites the fight to keep the port of Dover and its historic surroundings from being privatised, and the fate of Billingsgate market. “The Billingsgate porters are one of the most ancient workforces in the country and the Corporation of London wants to make them redundant. So the City of London – all the privileges, all the political status, belongs to the rich and to capital – and the workforce have no protection.” National treasures such as the Forest of Dean, Sherwood Forest and the White Cliffs of Dover must be preserved. “I would like to see Ed on the white cliffs saying: ‘This is forever England.'”

He says Cameron’s “big society” is in thrall to a free-market philosophy that leaves communities and individuals at the mercy of forces that respect profit far more than tradition, custom and a sense of place. The “blue” in “Blue Labour” comes from a conservative conviction that market forces, unconstrained, play havoc with the fabric of people’s lives. It is the Labour party’s task and vocation to provide a “countervailing force” protecting communities against wealthy, powerful interests.

It is innovative stuff, a long way from Blairite themes of competition and market reform of the public sector, and Brown’s Treasury-based redistribution of the proceeds of growth by tax credit. New Labour defined itself by an accommodation to the market (and in Peter Mandelson’s case, the filthy rich), and engaged in modest redistribution of the proceeds of growth. Blue Labour, in the name of “the common good”, attacks such laissez-faire economics from both left and right.

The Glasman “project” will undoubtedly ruffle feathers inside and outside Labour. As well as high-flown theory, he has mischief and humour. Once he had decided to accept a peerage, Glasman’s next step was to contact the relevant authorities to request that his title be Lord Glasman of the City of London. He wanted to make a political point that an under-regulated City of London should be more accountable to parliament – only to be told that his request was “unprecedented” and “unacceptable”.

Instead he is likely to plump for the humbler, simpler title of Lord Glasman of Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill. It was, perhaps, the first hard lesson on his unexpected journey from academia to life at Westminster.

GLASMAN IN HIS OWN WORDS…

On Brown and Blair

“Brown ended up defending the state, Blair ended up defending the market, and there was no concept of society”

On Tory “big society” rhetoric

“Power to the people. They are claiming all that stuff that Labour has abandoned as absolutely pivotal. We have to reclaim the land.”

On standing with the people

“Labour should stand with fans and not the bosses of [football clubs such as] Manchester United and Liverpool.”

On David Cameron

“I think that David Cameron is genuinely a One Nation Tory… It is Clegg and Osborne who are in the deep alliance on the neo-liberal Thatcherite economics.”

On Miliband and the PM

“What Ed should do is invite Cameron to join Labour, which is really about the big society and won’t be closing post offices and libraries.”

The Plunkett Foundation has published a new report containing an overview of the development of the community shop sector in the UK, and of the health and wealth of the sector today. The report is based on an indepth review of community shops undertaken in 2010 by the Plunkett Foundation and Community Retail Advisers with 121 community shops. The report includes new statistics focusing on the success factors of community shops and in particular the reasons why community shops represent better forms of business.

In summary, community shops represent;

1. Better resilience:
• Community shops operate with a 97% success rate, compared with a national UK business survival rate of 46.8%
• Community shops are set to continue their growth  at around 19 new shops per year
• With an estimated  400 commercial village shop closures each year, community shops replace 5% of all village shop closures

2. Better Governance:
• All shops adopt robust structures promoting genuine community ownership and democratic control
• Community shops have an average of 7 directors and 133 members
• 65% of community shops adopt the IPS Bencom structure which significantly boosts member engagement: 155 over 48 for other structures

3. Better Finances
• Turnover for community shops range between £7,000 – £900,000pa
• The collective turnover for community shops in 2010 is estimated to be at £33million or £132,635 per shop
• Average Net profits were recorded to be £3,654 per shop or £1million collectively
• Community Shops were operating at average gross margins of 21%
• Volunteering saves shops an average of £27,752 per year in staff time

4. Better Services
• 98% of community shops sell local produce
• 40% of community shops have cafes
• 58% of community shops host Post Offices
• 59% of community shops take debit/credit cards

5. Better Communities and Lives
• 22% of Net Profits are reallocated to community projects representing £200,000 nationally
• Shops typically employ 1.9 members of staff and create 30 volunteer placements
• 90% of shops use volunteers regularly, in 2010 using 1million hours

The full report is available here.

COMMUNITY ownership has reinvigorated many parts of rural Scotland that faced serious decline, according to a new study of one of the flagship policies brought in after devolution.
Many of the buy-outs have led to a “cascade” of new investment from outside agencies which has led to communities becoming more self-sufficient and in some cases reversed decades of falling populations, the study says.

Community landowners now control 500,000 acres of Scotland, from Assynt in Sutherland to Gigha off the Kintyre peninsula. But the report’s author warns the Scottish government and other funding bodies that some communities with few assets will need more help in the early stages of a takeover if they too are going to turn into success stories.

The study was carried out by Dr Rob McMorran, from the Perth-based Centre for Mountain Studies, part of the prospective University of the Highlands and Islands, who concludes that buyouts encouraged by the Scottish Parliament have had a positive impact on rural communities.

“There is a general feeling of security, stability and community confidence (after a buyout) and this can result in wider stakeholders showing a much greater willingness to become involved in the estate and invest in important services.

“Following buyouts communities also have a strong sense of ownership and empowerment. As a result of community members being involved, often in activities that they may not have done before you get a real build-up of knowledge and social capital in these communities. This facilitates communities to get to the point where they can look after themselves.”

McMorran said the Knoydart Foundation, a community-led body that took over an estate in north-west Scotland for almost £800,000 in 1999 after a succession of private landlords, is now approaching self-sufficiency. He said without a buyout Knoydart was facing “community disintegration and continued decline” due to local insecurity, people leaving the area and lack of investment.

Since the takeover the population has increased, housing infrastructure has improved and a number of new businesses have started.

Lorne MacLeod, a director of Community Land Scotland, welcomed the study: “Ownership of land by communities allows so much to be done in terms of developing the assets. The process of going through a buyout is good in terms of gaining confidence in the community and improving the capacity for people to undertake projects. The effect of that exercise cannot be underplayed.”

AN EAST Kilbride councillor is at loggerheads with community activists after putting the condition of a shopping precinct under the spotlight. Central South Councillor Gerry Convery highlighted the rundown state of the Westwood Square two weeks ago after attempts to get the precinct’s owners, Russell Properties, to upgrade it fell on deaf ears.

However, the EK councillor has since come under a barrage of criticism from members of the Westwood community council and traders in the square who say he has never approached them to work together on the issue.

Jim Russell, secretary of the Westwood community council, said: “This is an issue we have been dealing with for a number of years. The general poor state of repair in the shopping area has been raised at almost every meeting of the community council and if Councillor Convery had attended any of our meetings we could have perhaps joined forces in an attempt to put pressure on the property owners.”

Councillor Convery’s call for action also riled some traders in the square.

Fiona Stevenson has ran a barber’s shop for three years and was astonished when she read about Mr Convery’s campaign.

She said: “He has never even came in to my shop and talked to me or some of the other local businesses. I called him to speak about it because it will do the square’s business no good to run it down, and that’s what’s happening.

“I was told that because I wasn’t a constituent, I wasn’t his concern but I employ three local residents so will it be a concern if he puts their jobs at risk? I was very angry at what he did.”

Councillor Convery told the EK Mail: “I’m not going to get involved in any nonsense with these people. Myself and Councillor Pat Watters have been working away behind the scenes to get something done. We have not worked against anybody. We have done this off our own backs and as an elected councillor – not once has any shopkeeper approached me about the state of the square.

“We were trying to help the shopkeepers but maybe it is up to them to get their act into gear with the owners. There’s not a lot we can do because as we’ve said, it’s not owned by the council.”

He added: “ I’m quite annoyed that some of the shopkeepers felt this was negative. What was so bad about trying to get the square up-graded. It was Pat and I who got the money to get the bridge painted.

“My interests are the people I represent. I want to work with the community council and the shopkeepers.”

DTA News briefing – 13 December 2010

On 13 December 2010, the Government introduced the Decentralisation and Localism Bill to parliament. The new legislation outlines a set of new powers and measures designed to shift power from central government and into the hands of individuals, communities and local councils.

In particular, the new Bill plans to ‘lift the burden of bureaucracy, empower communities to do things their way, increase local control of public finance, diversify the supply of public services, open up government to public scrutiny, and strengthen accountability to local people’.

Of particular relevance to the community sector, the Bill is set to enact:

A Community Right to Buy

This will require local authorities to maintain a list of public or private assets of “community value”. There will be a mechanism for community groups to put forward land or buildings for consideration. When listed assets come up for disposal (either the freehold or a long leasehold), there will be a moratorium preventing immediate sale, allowing communities time to develop a bid and raise the capital to buy the asset. The local authority will be able to determine how long the moratorium will be. At the end of the moratorium the listed asset would come onto the open market (and therefore community organisations may need to compete against private bidders).

Over the last few years DTA has been arguing for a community right to buy to be introduced in England, following the experience of Scotland. The Scottish mechanism goes further by allowing community organisations a right of first refusal during the moratorium period. However it is also excessively cumbersome, so much so that in Scotland only ten Community Right to Buy applications have succeeded in six years. This new right for England does not swing the balance in favour of community groups as strongly as in Scotland, but because it should be much simpler for community groups to use, it might have a much bigger impact. A key consideration is the length of the moratorium period: DTA has argued it should be at least six months, and we will lobby to have that stipulated in the legislation or regulation.

Overall, the Community Right to Buy is an important symbolic step forward, and it could become an important mechanism for development trusts and other community groups to acquire their own assets whilst increasing their independence and capacity to deliver local services. However as will all forms of community asset development this will not be free from risks and many community organisations will need support to do this successfully. The Asset Transfer Unit (www.atu.org.uk) in the last 18 months alone has provided hands on support to over 100 asset transfer projects and provided guidance and advice to hundreds more; we would hope both central and local government can find ways to ensure such support mechanisms continue to be made available wherever asset transfers are being considered.

A Community Right to Build

This measure will give local communities the power to take forward development in their area without the need to apply for planning permission, subject to meeting certain safeguards and securing 50 per cent support of the community through a referendum. Originally the requirement was 90% support, so this is a considerable reduction, following lobbying by DTA and others.

A Community Right to Challenge

A right for voluntary and community groups, social enterprises, parish councils and local authority employees delivering a service, to challenge a local authority, by expressing an interest in running any service for which they are responsible. A local authority must consider and respond to this challenge. The challenge may trigger a procurement exercise for that service, which the challenging organisation could then bid in, alongside others. In principle, this is very welcome, and is broadly what the DTA and others have suggested, as it creates an important opportunity for community organisations to make the case to take over the running of a service themselves. But there is no guarantee of success, and they may still have to compete in a tendering process, in some cases against private sector competition.

Community Infrastructure Levy

The Community Infrastructure Levy is a tax on commercial developers (charities are exempt from the tax). This Bill will require local authorities to allocate a proportion of Community Infrastructure Levy revenues back to the neighbourhood from which it was raised. This might become an important new source of local finance for local community projects.

Neighbourhood Planning

The Bill will introduce a new right for communities to ”shape their local areas”. Neighbourhood plans will enable communities to permit development without the need for planning applications. Also the Bill will introduce a new requirement for prospective developers to consult local communities before submitting planning applications for very large developments.

Local Referendums

This measure will give local residents, councillors and councils the power to instigate a local referendum on any local issue. Although these referendums will be non-binding, local authorities and other public authorities will be required to take the outcomes into account in decision making.

For more details read Decentralisation and the Localism Bill: an essential guide http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1793908.pdf

The full details of the Bill are available on: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/localism/documents.html

Dr. Kim McKee spoke at the EVH conference at St. Andrews in November 2010

Dr McKee speech can be viewed here

Her concluding remarks were…

Community housing has been a real positive strength and unique feature of the RSL sector in Scotland. It is premised on respecting the knowledge of local residents; is underpinned by the values of citizen empowerment and direct democracy; and plays a key role in delivering wider political agendas around community cohesion and social inclusion.

We need to focus on the positive elements the sector can deliver for local communities, not place its future under threat. Over the last 35 years CCHAs have been key players in delivering wider action and community regeneration agendas within Scotland’s most deprived communities, in addition to being excellent and responsive social landlords, providing quality, affordable housing for rent.

We should be celebrating the movement’s contribution to housing and social policy agendas in Scotland, not seeing it as ‘easy prey’ in an era of financial austerity and public sector cuts.

BIG SOCIETY AND PUBLIC SERVICES –  Complementarity or erosion?

The two main principles put forward together in big society policy – strengthening the independence of communities, and encouraging them to take over public services – are in contradiction with each other, claims a new study from think-tank PACES Empowerment (www.pacesempowerment.co.uk then click the ‘Big Society and Public Services’ download).

Big Society and Public Services, by Gabriel Chanan and Colin Miller, says that taking over public services makes voluntary organisations more, not less dependent on the state, through contracts with public authorities. The most independent and economical form of community action is the work of community groups which carry out their own activities.

Supporting community groups is economical because they take pressure off public services by spreading their own forms of wellbeing, informal skills, learning, mutual aid and personal responsibility, and require only a fraction of their value through state support.

The national survey of third sector organisations shows that these groups are the great majority of the third sector, but receive only a small proportion of the support they need. (The survey, by far the largest of the sector ever done in England, was commissioned by the Office for Civil Society. See www.nstso.com or www.nscsesurvey.com )
 
Independent of the state, and consisting mainly of members and volunteers, community groups can also express the views of communities and hold public services to account, no matter which sector the services are delivered by. Social enterprises under contract to the state consist of paid staff and cannot perform this role without conflict of interest.

The answer, says PACES, is to make empowering communities the leading big society policy with its own criteria and investment. The main methods would be reformed community development, better amenities for groups and more widely available grants.

Commissioning voluntary organisations and social enterprises to carry out public services should be a supplementary policy, including giving the best chance to genuinely local grass-roots groups which can handle the dual roles separately.

A comment by Les Huckfield on the recent consultation paper from Scottish Government – Securing the benefits from Scotland’s next energy revolution

The Government’s Consultation Paper is somewhat confusing on local community involvement, especially in its choice of examples of the Shetlands Charitable Trust, South Lanarkshire Renewable Energy Fund and East Renfrewshire Whitelee Wind Farm Fund. These are administered through local councils. The document appears to be confused about the difference between local community benefit and local government benefit.

Real Community Benefit
Much of the Consultation Paper looks supportable. However some of examples used are not based on real community involvement. Though there is little disagreement that Scotland should receive a fair share of development gain and taxation from renewable energy investments, the paper offers few real ways in which local communities will benefit and through which they may participate and share.
The following examples from the document show a lack of real community involvement.

SHETLAND ISLANDS COUNCIL AND SHETLAND CHARITABLE TRUST

To illustrate its preferred way forward, the Consultation Document provides unconditional support to the way Shetland Islands have handled community benefit. (Scottish Government 2010)
“29……..Shetland Islands Council showed foresight in securing via, primarily, the Zetland County Council Act 1974, a lasting revenue stream for the benefit of the islands from the development of the Sullom Voe terminal. The result of this Act and subse-quent contractual negotiations is that Shetland today has a lasting legacy of around £216m. This figure is over and above the funds contained in the Shetland Reserve Fund, administered by Shetland Islands Council.
“30. The Shetland Charitable Trust, established in 1974 to manage the income stream accrued to Shetland, today provides funding to a number of charitable organisations and projects where there is a clear benefit to the Shetland community. Over the years, the Trust has made a contribution to creating a modern, positive and healthy community in Shetland. Shetland Charitable Trust’s financial strength has also given it the power to establish joint venture projects to move into the renewable en-ergy generation market.”
Shetland was quick to foresee the possibilities from North Sea oil and gas. 20 years before devolution, the 1974 Zetland County Council Act gave the Shetlands Islands Council full control over oil related developments, enabling a massive oil fund in the following years. Shetland is now one of the wealthiest parts of the UK. Sullom Voe’s oil terminal became the largest in Europe, handling up to 1.4m. Though now past its peak, the terminal is expected to last until at least 2020.
But the Shetland Islands Charitable Trust, set up to administer community benefit, is dominated by Councillors. Most Councillors and members of the Planning Panel are members of the Trust.

The Office for the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) has expressed concern about the close relationship between the Shetland Charitable Trust and Shetland Island Council, which have hired Roy Martin QC to: (Shetland Islands Council and Shetlands Charitable Trust 2010 )

– “determine if the constitution of the Charitable Trust requires to be changed in light of current OSCR opinion and Trust regulations, and
– make recommendations as are necessary for the future governance of the Trust
As a separate issue, the Council is also to ask Mr Martin to provide his legal opinion on the issue of grouping the Charitable Trust and Council financial accounts.”

VIKING ENERGY WIND FARM APPLICATION
Viking Energy has been set up as a 50/50 Joint Project between Viking Energy (a subsidiary of Shetland Charitable Trust) and SSE Viking Energy Ltd (subsidiary of Scottish and Southern Energy) to develop a huge windfarm. The relationship of the Charitable Trust, Council and Planning Panel means that Councillors may have difficulty in commenting appropriately on their own planning application.
The revised Viking Energy Windfarm Planning application submitted on Wednesday 29 September 2010 is for 127 turbines with up to 540mw capacity, a development area of 12,800 hectares and projected cost at £800m. Reponses to the 2009 planning application showed 2026 opposing the wind farm and 518 in support.
The Viking Energy windfarm means that nearly 6000 birds will be killed. The Carbon Payback period is 48.5 years. In opposition, the 750 members of Sustainable Shetland, formed in February 2008, have a clear position: (Sustainable Shetland 2010 )
“We believe that the Viking Energy proposals are everything we do not need in Shetland: they are financially risky and potentially damaging to the Shetland en-vironment.
We want to see sustainable renewable energy projects in Shetland which are fit for scale and fit for purpose, and provide real community benefit.
We are not an “anti-wind power” campaign. However we are strongly opposed to the Viking wind farm proposal. Other projects will be considered on their own merits”.
Despite these significant local problems, including difficulties with OSCR and possible conflicts of in-terest for Councillors involved, the Consultation Document believes that Shetland offers the way forward: (Scottish Government 2010 -d)
“31. The example of the Zetland County Council Act 1974 provides a role-model for the rest of Scotland to follow. It offers a model of local people benefiting from the abundant natural resources which surround them; and a model of how a lasting legacy can be created for the benefit of all”

Community Benefit from Offshore Developments (Scottish Government 2010)
“45. The benefits which might be enjoyed in the future by local communities from
offshore projects are similar to those currently being enjoyed by onshore com-munities with many benefiting from increased employment opportunities, in par-ticular in the initial construction stages.
“46. However, local communities in proximity to an offshore development are likely to encounter the same problems as communities hosting onshore developments when it comes to maximising the levels of community benefit available to them. In addition, they encounter the problem of working out how to define the term “local community” with respect to a project which may be many miles from the coastline. However, it’s clear that a significant development off the coast of, for example, Tiree or Islay ought to bring some benefits to those islands. After all, a local community is likely to be more reluctant to be in close proximity to a development if it cannot see tangible benefits coming back in return. This will be all the more the case if it feels that a development will have a negative impact on existing successful industries.
It is difficult to disagree with or contradict these general principles. But there are significant differences between Fintry as an innovatory Development Trust, Drumderg with a Community Fund administered by Scottish Community Foundation, and Shetland, as described above.

Community involvement and empowerment are critical. For those on Tiree or Islay, these develop-ments will change their way of life forever, whether or not they see community benefits. Scottish Power Renewables Argyll Array Scoping Document is rightly cautious: (Scottish Power Renewables 2010 )
“The Argyll Renewables Communities (ARC) Consortium – a partnership between Tiree Community Development Trust, the Islay Energy Trust and the Kintyre Energy Trust – is in the process of commissioning work into the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed offshore wind farms in their area. Scottish Power Renewables will engage closely with ARC on this work.
In addition, Scottish Power Renewables anticipates close working with Argyll and Bute Council on these aspects of the project, building on the strength of the Con-cordat between the two organisations”.
But this Argyll and Bute Concordat appears fragile as a basis for ensuring real community benefit. Its real test will be how this works in practice (Argyll and Bute Council and Scottish Power UK plc 2007 ):
“The exploration of the potential for an Argyll and Bute-wide fund which will draw resources from large-scale wind farm and other renewable energy devel-opments in order to ensure that the entire community of Argyll and Bute benefits from renewable energy”
The Consultation Document’s example of Whitelee Windfarm (Scottish Government 2010), with up to £500,000 paid annually by the developers, is one where administration of community benefit is effectively under local council control in East Ayrshire, East Renfrewshire (the Whitelee Wind Farm Fund) and South Lanarkshire (Renewable Energy Fund). As with the Shetland Charitable Trust, com-munity benefit is effectively at the behest of the local council.
As an antidote to these top down examples, there are Community Trust precedents and examples in the “Guide for Community Groups in Investing for Community Benefit” (The Pool in Scotland et al. 2010 ). Apart from providing detailed descriptions of organisations formed by local communities, this Guide promotes foundation principles for Community Trusts. There are also many other examples in research by the Scottish Community Foundation. (Ruck et al. 2009 )

PROPOSED REGISTER OF COMMUNITY BENEFIT
The Document’s proposal for a Register of Community Benefit looks worthwhile. (Scottish Government 2010)
85. The Scottish Government sees merit in the creation of an open and transparent, publicly accessible register where there would be the publication of the community benefit levels that renewable energy developers offer, have offered or will offer, and other opportunities for communities to get involved in their developments. This would promote best practice commercially among developers of all renewables technologies and provide significant leverage to help communities negotiate on an equal footing.
However, previous research by Scottish Community Foundation and others has already provided sig-nificant background information. (Ruck etal. 2009 ; The Pool in Scotland etal. 2010 ). There is also the intriguing precedent of research for Shetland Charitable Trust by University of Strathclyde (McGregor etal. 2010 )
“The deployment of the increased funds available for community purposes proves crucial to the scale of the estimated impacts. Not surprisingly, improvements in Community Benefit have a positive effect on the host region. However, these benefits are very modest relative to those that could be secured from any shared-ownership scheme. Both types of benefit may prove useful in persuading local communities to host renewable energy projects even given some deterioration in their local environment”.
Though this research shows benefits in the joint venture approach adopted by Shetland Charitable Trust and Scottish and Southern Energy, it reveals little about genuine local community involvement.