The CRNS has changed its name and from today will be known as the Community Resources Network Scotland (CRNS).

Formerly the Community Recycling Network for Scotland, the organisation decided on the change to reflects the diversity of its membership and the underlying principles of zero waste – that there is no waste, only resources. It also captures the growing awareness of waste as an increasingly valuable resource.

Pauline Hinchion, chief executive of CRNS, said: “The new name better reflects the wide variety of resource management activities that our members deliver. We’re not just about recycling; we’re about reuse, waste prevention, education & awareness, composting and creating energy from technologies such as anaerobic digestion.

“It builds on our belief that there are benefits to communities if they become more resource efficient, and that communities have a big role to play in a strong resource economy.”

The name change follows a review by the CRNS Board and an extensive consultation process over the last twelve months with the membership. This process has also seen emergence of new vision and mission statements for the CRNS, which can be viewed on the CRNS website launched at www.crns.org.uk

For further information, please contact Susan Wright, media and communications manager, on 07887 752831 or susan@crns.org.uk

For more information on the CRNS, please visit www.crns.org.uk

Author: Damien Henderson, The Herald

COMMUNITY groups are to be given a greater role in running their own bus services as part of a plan to save millions of pounds currently paid to private firms to run “lifeline” routes.

Council-run body Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) says securing greater involvement from the public will be vital as part of an efficiency drive designed to protect vulnerable and isolated communities from cuts in public transport.

A number of charities and voluntary groups in the west of Scotland have already been given funding to provide transport to hospital or other public services that would otherwise not be provided by private bus companies.

They include the British Red Cross Society, which is working with SPT to deliver door-to-door bus services for elderly and infirm residents on Arran, and Coalfield Community Transport, which provides accessible and affordable transport for former mining villages in East Ayrshire, as well as groups in Glasgow and East Dunbartonshire.

As part of its plan, SPT has purchased 57 buses which, unlike council fleets, can be reconfigured to transport disabled passengers to and from hospital, take children on the school run and deliver bus services at off-peak periods when commercial operators are unable to make money.

“We currently pay a lot of money to bus companies to provide socially necessary services and there has to be a way of cutting that expenditure in order to protect those services”  Jonathan Findlay, SPT chairman

It is hoped the approach will mean councils are less reliant on private operators to deliver subsidised services and prevent the waste of having school buses – and drivers – sitting idle for most of the day between school runs.

Arrangements will differ from group to group, but typically SPT will provide the bus and the individual organisation will be required to provide its own driver and cover any subsequent running costs of the service.

Jonathan Findlay, chairman of SPT, said the changes were necessary as he warned that bus users were facing a “perfect storm” as private firms cut routes that struggled to make money and councils were forced to cut subsidies for “socially necessary” services.

SPT currently pays £10.1 million a year – just more than one-quarter of its budget – to subsidise bus companies so they can operate commercially non- viable routes and pay for demand responsive services for communi- ties that would otherwise not have access to public transport.

The 12 councils in the SPT area currently spend £28m a year on school buses but many have been forced to withdraw or reduce the service they offer.

In an interview with The Herald, Mr Findlay said the bill would be far higher if councils were left to provide the services themselves but said there was room for efficiency savings.

“I’m very interested in investigating getting a greater level of involvement of the community, particularly where commercial services have been withdrawn,” he said.

“We currently pay a lot of money to bus companies to provide socially necessary ser-vices and there has to be a way of cutting that expenditure in order to protect those services.”

Speaking nine months after his appointment, following an expenses scandal that saw the resignation of SPT’s chair, vice-chair and chief executive, Mr Findlay said he was presiding over an organisation that was “leaner and more focused on its core objectives”.

That has included halving the number of directors and working through the organisation department by department to implement reforms.

Author: Paul Salveson, Regen.net

Railways haven’t been viewed as fertile territory for community enterprise, but things might be starting to change. The Government is reviewing its policy on rail franchising, and there is growing interest in testing out ‘micro-franchising’ – an idea developed in the 1990s based on continental European experience, where small networks of local railways are franchised by a county or regional authority.

The approach adopted over the last few years has been to go for bigger and bigger franchises that end up losing focus and lacking entrepreneurial vision. As things stand, the franchise process is the exclusive preserve of the big multi-national transport groups that can afford to spend millions on their bids. It’s interesting that the most popular train companies are either small operators like Grand Central, Hull Trains, and Wrexham and Shropshire, or relatively small franchises like Merseyrail and Chiltern Railways.
 
If the Government decided to give “micro-franchising” a try, there would be opportunities for co-operatives, or other types of social enterprise, to enter the rail market. The Government should cascade responsibility for franchising local rail networks – perhaps comprising three or four routes which form a clear geographical network – to county councils, consortia of local authorities or, in metropolitan areas, the passenger transport executives (PTEs). This already happens in Merseyside, where the Merseyrail franchise is managed by the PTE.
 
This approach would fit with the Government’s ideas on localism and the Big Society. Local community bus services have been delivered by social enterprises for years and a lot of expertise has been developed. If the community transport sector went further and developed railway expertise it could bring the sort of innovation to local rail that it has demonstrated in the road transport sector. There is already a co-operative business in the south-west – the Go Co-op – formed to develop “open access” rail operations. There is no reason why it couldn’t bid for rail franchises if the size was right and small operators were incentivised to bid.
 
A local social enterprise running a small, area-based franchise would generate local jobs both directly and indirectly – by local purchasing and promoting the area as a tourist destination. There is no reason why it could not also run feeder bus services and provide other complementary services including bike hire and travel agency services, and use stations as convenience stores selling local produce.
 
Paul Salveson has worked in adult and community education and the railway industry. he founded the Association of Community rail Partnerships in 1997 and was awarded an MBE “for services to the railway industry” in 2009. He runs his own consultancy specialising in railways and community engagement – The Railway Doctor 

SNP Manifesto proposals – a consultation

We propose a Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill to strengthen communities across Scotland. It will include a new streamlined route to enable community purchase of under-used or unused public sector assets and options to enable communities to deal with derelict and dormant land and buildings in their midst. We believe that for many communities the transfer of a viable asset can provide the catalyst for a wide range of community activities and enterprises.

Scotland needs a National Litter Strategy and SNP MSPs and Councillors will host local and national litter summits so we can hear peoples views on a range of measures, including actions that we know work elsewhere. For example ‘Adopt a Highway’ from the USA, Street Champions from England or Helsinki’s Spring Clean Festivals which bring together communities and volunteers alongside the public sector.

And alongside this action on community asset transfer, we also seek your views on the creation of a series of Local Endowment Funds, starting with Scotland’s most deprived communities as a means of delivering a long-term income stream for community led initiatives.

A number of organisations have made representations to us about the potential benefits of Social Impact Bonds. These draw in non-governmental, upfront investment to tackle and reduce specific social problems, with investors paid back from the medium term savings to the public purse. We believe Social Impact Bonds are a potentially powerful tool, creating a financial mechanism that will test the premise that social investment today can deliver financial savings in the future. They also have the potential to draw in private and third sector investment at a time of pressure on public sector budgets.

We are looking to identify three pilot projects that would benefit from investment through Social Impact Bonds. Projects would be ones that require substantial up-front investment, and which then would reduce ongoing costs to the public sector. These could focus on health, justice, poverty or climate change and would be designed to deliver significant benefits for the communities involved.

We are also examining ways of supporting and encouraging new sources of finance and credit for both small businesses and community enterprises. We will work to support the expansion of Charity and Social Banking, including Credit Unions and the provision of micro-finance for emerging enterprises. And we will work to deliver a significant expansion of social enterprise and co-operative businesses and services.

The Scottish Government is currently consulting on a range of creative ways to fund new housing development, at a time when public funds are extremely limited. We will be setting out our ideas on housing at a later stage.

To vote your preferences click here

Extract from SSEC Manifesto.
To view entire document click here  In Business to Change Lives

Communities through Social Enterprise
Social enterprises in Scotland already play a defining role in developing sustainable cohesive communities. However at a time of constrained public spending and with our communities facing so many challenges, we believe the proactive transfer of public assets to community ownership can underpin social enterprise delivery of local skills, local jobs and amenities.

Recognise the Role of Social Enterprise in Urban Regeneration
Large scale urban developments can offer significant opportunities to empower local communities and create local jobs through community ownership of assets.
 We call on the future Scottish Government to ensure all new developments include asset transfer provisions to an independent community trust.

Tackle Public Asset Transfer Delays
Community management and ownership of public assets can support the wider public
interest and create community owned social enterprises working for the community good, without incurring unmanageable risk and opportunity costs.
We call on the future Scottish Government to work with all public bodies to tackle asset transfer delays, in particular to introduce a legislative change to permit the transfer of underused assets below market value to local people.

Restore Momentum in the Land Reform Agenda
Land ownership is the catalyst for delivering community-led regeneration and growing community confidence and self reliance. We call on the future Scottish Government to review and extend community right-to-buy legislation with a re-established Scottish land fund to assist community land acquisition.

The future of East and Central Sutherland social enterprise company GREAN (Golspie Recycling and Environmental Action Network), which employs 23 people, is once again in doubt. A funding agreement between GREAN and Highland Council comes to an end in March next year and no assurances have as yet been given that it will continue.

Instead, fears are high that a radical shake-up by the local authority of waste refuse services in the Highlands, aimed at saving £500,000, could adversely affect GREAN.

The company, which began operating in 2002 and is based in Golspie Industrial Estate, is the only community sector group left in the Highlands offering a kerbside collection service. A similar community enterprise on the north coast, Bettyhill Environment Action Group, ceased trading in June 2008.

Highland Council presently provides a kerbside recycling service to 95 per cent of households in its area and waste management officials are thought to regard GREAN, which requires over £400,000 a year to operate, as an anomaly.

Concern over the group’s future intensified following a meeting of Highland Council’s Transport, Environmental and Community Services (TEC) committee, held in Inverness on 23 September. Members agreed to axe the present system of weekly refuse collections across the Highland area and instead introduce a fortnightly pick-up.

The new scheme, in which general household refuse will be collected one week and recyclables the next, will be gradually rolled out. The move is expected to save the local authority £500,000 in wages and vehicle costs.

Councillors took the decision after considering a report by Head of Waste Services, Colin Clark, who gave a strong indication that the new system would have a knock-on effect on GREAN.

He stated: “The roll-out of alternate weekly collections in East and Central Sutherland will impact on the operations of GREAN.”

However, also before councillors was an analysis of comments made by North residents during the council’s recent budget consultation. It states: “People were supportive of community recycling schemes such as GREAN and it was suggested that those should be increased across the area.”

North, West and Central Sutherland councillor George Farlow sits on the TEC Services committee and was present at the 23 September meeting. He subsequently went on to voice his fears about GREAN’s future at a recent meeting of Lairg Community Council.

Speaking to the NT earlier this week, Councillor Farlow confirmed that he thought the council wanted to usurp GREAN.

He said: “It seems to me that the Highland Council want a one-size fits all approach.”

Northern Times correspondent Liz Quinn, who was at the community council meeting, said: “Members were horrified that GREAN’s good work could be in jeopardy and felt that the jobs had to be safeguarded. It was suggested that members of the public could write to the council in support of GREAN on this issue.”

At Monday night’s meeting of Golspie Community Council, members, and the public in attendance, also fully supported the retention of GREAN services.

GREAN manager Fiona MacDonald said: “We work on contracts and are just coming to the end of a two year contract – it finishes in March next year.

“We hope to get the contract renewed and that is what we are working towards at the moment. We don’t know what impact the roll-out of alternate weekly waste collections will have. We hope it is not going to affect us too greatly, but we just don’t know.”

Meanwhile GREAN is continuing to expand its operations and has just opened a new textile workshop “SewGREAN” in Unit 2 on Golspie Industrial Estate under the management of newly appointed textile supervisor, Sheila Kennard.

The battle has been raging in Scotland for hundreds of years and once was fought with clubs, staves and other weapons.

Now it appears a war of words in a court of law will be required to settle a dispute that is one of the most enduring in this country’s history – ownership of the land.

The Hill of Alyth is an unlikely battleground but the tangled history of land ownership in this part of Perthshire between Kirriemuir and Blairgowrie serves to demonstrate how, despite land reform, this remains a controversial and convoluted matter, possibly involving the use of a seven-figure sum of public money.

Andy Wightman, the leading land reform campaigner, has uncovered documentary evidence to show that Scottish ministers paid nearly £3 million of public money to buy land at the Hill of Alyth – despite half of the land never belonging to the sellers.

It is common land, which the community had tried to defend for generations, on one occasion in the 18th century with “clubs and staves and other weapons”. In 1949 more than 500 turned out to take direct action. They cut down fences that had been put up on land they believed had been theirs for 600 years.

In his new book, The Poor Had No Lawyers, being serialised by The Herald and Sunday Herald, Mr Wightman traces how in the 1920s one of Scotland’s oldest aristocratic families assumed it could include parts of this land with its neighbouring properties, near the village of Alyth.

The author reveals that in 1977, when the Earl of Airlie’s trustees came to sell two parcels of this common land, they admitted in the deed of sale they had never claimed the disputed area they were selling on the Hill of Alyth was part of their property. They simply claimed it could be “construed” to be.

They also conceded in the deed “we or our predecessors in title have at various times disponed [made over or conveyed legally] parts of the subjects known as The Hill of Alyth to which we or they may have had a right but granted no warrandice [legal guarantees, including that the seller can validly transfer ownership]”.

So, despite not being able to prove they owned it, they sold it to another landowner who then sold it to the Scottish Government, whose lawyers approved the purchase.

In 1998 leading estate agents FPD Savills marketed another part of the common land on the Hill of Alyth as part of a farm for sale and were completely frank that the sellers could not prove they owned it.

According to the particulars, they had acquired title “from previous heritable proprietors to the Hill of Alyth without warrandice. The purchaser will be given title to the hill on the same terms.”

Mr Wightman believes the Hill of Alyth is one of a multitude of cases where common land was taken by private landowners, but without anyone acting illegally; their actions having been legitimised by laws from the 17th century.

He claims that for the past 900 years, common land has been “legally stolen” in this way, with property law serving the interests of the powerful. He believes the Hill of Alyth is the perfect modern example of this: “The whole point is that it is legal, but it clearly shouldn’t be.”

According to Mr Wightman, there were repeated attempts to divide the land on the Hill of Alyth by landlords who wanted to acquire it: “But the process stalled and, by 1843, the hill was noted as still being a commonty [a piece of land in which two or more people have a common right] in the New Statistical Account of Scotland. Since then, no further actions have been raised to divide the commonty and it therefore remains a commonty to this day.”

However neighbouring landlords had never accepted this, and went about their annexations and sales. These now have the imprimatur of SNP Scottish Ministers, albeit a process set in train by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive.

The land was bought for the Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) but there is no evidence that body knew the history of the hill.

A spokesman for FCS said of the Hill of Alyth: “We are always open and willing to consider any new documentation that might support a claim of commonty. We are always open to discussing options with anyone who can demonstrate that they have legitimate rights to carry out specific activities on the national forest estate.

“While FCS titles are, on a purely historical basis, subject to any commonty rights and rights of grazing which can be substantiated, the existence of such a burden on the face of the title does not necessarily imply that such rights exist or are enforceable. The onus of proof in respect of such rights rests with any claimant.”

He said FCS had previously requested further evidence that would support this claim of commonty, but so far had not been provided with any. But he concluded: “It is likely that this issue will only be resolved once a legal decision has been taken.” 

‘There are more than 9.4 million acres of land held by a mere 969 landowners’

In his 1996 book Who Owns Scotland, Andy Wightman identified the ownership of some 65% of Scotland and examined the complex story of the power that accompanied the ownership of land. His new book, from which the following is an extract, continues the story.

What is revealing is the persistent pattern of very concentrated private ownership of land, which has remained virtually static since 1970.

The number of owners of 60% of private rural land in Scotland has decreased since 1970, from 1180 to 969 in 2010. The reason for this decrease is probably the steady amalgamation of farms and the acquisition of multiple holdings.

Were the analysis to continue to 70% of private rural land, it is almost certain the same increasing concentration would be observed, though a close analysis of the data would be required. Today there are more than 9.4 million acres of land held by a mere 969 landowners, and over 10 million acres of land are held by a mere 1550 private landowners in estates of 1000 acres and larger.

Just as the pattern of private ownership is largely unchanged, so the ownership itself has changed little. Of the 251 estates of 10,000 acres and larger in 2010, only 14 (5.5%) have changed hands since 1995, 3.5% of the acreage. Of these, two have been by inheritance and 12 by sale. Remarkably, in the top 100 landowners of 2010, Hugh MacLeod, who inherited Dunvegan Estates from his father, is the only newcomer.

The most significant change since 1995 is the marked increase in the extent of land owned by community organisations and, to a lesser extent, by conservation bodies. Community ownership has more than doubled and conservation bodies such as the RSPB have increased their holdings by 44% since 1995. The bulk of expansion in landholdings of these two types of owner has been in the north and west Highlands and Islands.

Ownership of land by overseas interests remains controversial and poses challenges to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Around 80 estates covering around 905,000 acres are held by overseas individuals and offshore trusts. Periodic calls for tighter regulation or abolition of overseas ownership (particularly land owned in offshore tax havens) have failed to lead to reform.

Many of the institutional owners, such as Eagle Star and Prudential, have sold their land in Scotland and the extent of such ownership is much reduced from what it was in the 1970s. Pension funds still include land as part of their investment portfolio but now seem to prefer urban to rural. Forestry investment by pension funds is still prevalent and institutional or industrial ownership of forests by the timber industry has been growing steadily.

Scottish Ministers, the legal name for the Scottish Government, is the largest landowner in Scotland, owning 1,901,607 acres of land (9.8%) of Scotland’s land area. Land held by Scottish Ministers consists of two main holdings – the national forest estate managed by the Forestry Commission and the agricultural estates managed by the Scottish Government Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate.

The agricultural estate is dominated by large estates principally in the Western Isles, Skye and Sutherland, acquired early in the 20th century to create smallholdings and crofts. An additional 8895 acres of land on Barra was acquired in 2003 when MacNeil of Barra gifted it to the government.

For a copy of the full report, “Radical Scotland”, click here

Scottish public services could save money and improve outcomes for citizens by taking a radically different approach to reform, according to a report published today by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA).

The report, “Radical Scotland” recommends a ‘New Community Status’ that provides greater freedoms and responsibilities for leading local authorities and health boards to develop new approaches in public services that are both better and cheaper. This status would require the Scottish Government to set out bold strategies for reform in three critical areas of public services: health, justice and social care.

Without radical reform the costs of providing current levels of services in Scotland are set to rise by £27 billion over the next 15 years, due in particular to an ageing society and the prevalence of certain ill-health conditions.  In this same period, the Scottish Government will have £42 billion less to spend. To make services more sustainable, radical reform needs to become a more significant part of the Scottish Government’s strategy towards spending reductions.

Current responses to the UK Government’s spending plans are not sustainable given the limits of traditional efficiency measures and the cost of rising demand for public services. The report reviews a range of highly contentious money-saving measures discussed in the Independent Budget Review, and demonstrates that they would still require the Scottish Government to find a further £1 billion in spending reductions by 2014-15.

The report highlights a number of innovative approaches in Scotland that can save money by better managing demand and preventing problems. In the areas of health, social care and justice alone, even a small shift towards more effective approaches could make substantial savings, for example:
• In health, a reduction of 1 per cent in the costs associated with drug and alcohol-related abuse would generate savings of around £200 million.
• In Social Care, even a 10 per cent reduction in the cost of emergency hospital admissions each year would save £560 million.
• In Justice, a 10 per cent reduction in the costs of the prison system would suggest savings of £200m.
In order to achieve this, NESTA’s report envisages a new relationship between central government, deliverers of public services and local communities.  The proposed ‘New Community Status’ between certain public bodies and the Scottish Government would grant new freedoms to local service providers such as local authorities and health boards. They would have access to investment, support and greater independence to innovate, in return for a commitment to return a proportion of the projected savings from innovation to central government and to share their experiences with others.

NESTA Chief Executive, Jonathan Kestenbaum said: “Numerous examples from Scotland demonstrate how services can be refocused at a local level to prevent longer term problems. Scotland must make radical reform of its public services the driving mission.” 

Case studies
Some of the examples used in the report include:
• Pilton Community Health Project in Edinburgh – a charity that runs a number of community health projects with NHS Lothian  and the City of Edinburgh Council, promotes community engagement in targeting mental health, improved diet and physical activity.
• School, Social Work, Police and Community (SSPC) in East Renfrewshire – brings together all local agencies involved in tackling youth offending alongside the offenders and their families to address the inter-generational and social aspects of violent and anti-social behaviour.
• Partners for Inclusion – assists service users throughout Ayrshire, Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire to access the full range of available services, including community services, local social networks and the relationships within people’s lives.
• West Lothian’s Community Health and Care Partnership –developed an electronic self assessment tool – ‘Safe at Home’ – that has expert knowledge built in to calculate and provide a prescription of services targeted to the specific service user.
• Community Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV) in Glasgow – a two-year intensive programme with the aim of dramatically reducing gang violence in Glasgow’s East End.
• Reaching Older People in Renfrewshire (ROAR) – a local mentoring and befriending service for older people, actively connecting them into a community and skills exchange.

Author: Jim Harvey, Blog on website Fresh Thinking , New Ideas

A few months ago, I was asked to provide a comment for this website on the launch of Fresh Thinking, New Ideas.  The three big issues I highlighted then were affordability for tenants; sustainable funding systems; and tackling the root causes of inequality in our communities.

Like everyone else, I’ve now had time to read and reflect on the consultation document… so what’s the verdict?

On affordability, simple arithmetic means that less subsidy to build new houses will produce higher rents.  For many landlords, this will mean charging higher rents for new houses and higher rents for the rest of their housing stock, too, to make the figures add up.

Keeping rents affordable, while covering the costs of services and investment, has been one of the great successes of Scottish housing associations.  We need to preserve that. Letting rents and housing benefit take more of the strain in paying for new social housing is not the right policy for tenants or for the public finances.

Value for the public pound is understandably high on the Government’s priorities. What happens after this Housing Policy Discussion will shape the future of Housing Association Grant (HAG) in Scotland.  I have serious doubts about whether the current policy direction will allow housing associations to continue to build new houses in a way that is financially sustainable.

GWSF has recently set out a number of ideas for getting better value from HAG – but it’s also vital to recognise that the HAG system has underpinned the achievements of Scottish housing associations for more than 30 years.

Increasing tenants’ rents and landlords’ debt levels across the board are not sustainable ways of financing social housing.  After the collapse of the banks, the last thing we need is a housing policy that requires social landlords to take injudicious risks with their assets.  Those ‘assets’ are of course tenants’ homes.  Tenants are entitled to expect that their homes will be maintained to modern, energy-efficient standards and that this is not put at risk by short term thinking about how to finance new building.

As the Ministerial Foreword recognises, good quality housing helps bring about better educational and employment opportunities and a more prosperous and equal society.  But in our most disadvantaged communities, good quality housing by itself is not enough to achieve these things.

Achieving real change in the communities our members work in is about much more than housing.  It’s time for housing policy to recognise that community regeneration is an integral part of what many housing associations do – and that it’s something we could do more of, with the right support from central and local government.
 
Jim Harvey, Director Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations
www.gwsf.org.uk

As chief executive of an organisation which some consider an early pioneer for coproduction I’ve been asked to outline some thoughts on what I see as the challenges for coproduction.

I thought I might focus on a big one – people believe it is nothing new.

Having taken part in a variety of forums, discussions, networks et al whose primary focus has been to prepare the way for scaling up or mainstreaming coproduction I am consistently exposed to the mantra “we have always done this but we haven’t called it coproduction before”.

Wrong. Of course some of our methodologies share common principles and coproduction certainly lies somewhere on the service-user involvement continuum (sharing common ground with the ever growing family of co’s, design, collaboration, etc) however I understand coproduction to have a fundamental difference -coproduction changes the axis upon which services are delivered.

The challenge will be when people come to fully understand how coproduction alters the relationships between commissioners, providers and users. That it challenges our view of who the customer is.

Since it is the customer that creates the demand for any service provided it is for me, the most important question and we don’t ask it nearly enough. A relative easy step when we think of coproducing a community centre in the leafy suburbs, perhaps not so easy when we want to coproduce a criminal justice service.

We think we deliver services within a marketplace of supply and demand, albeit skewed. We don’t.

An overcomplicated system

We have traditionally confused identifying needs as the same thing as demand for an intervention. They are very different things. Rather than identifying, codifying and making the case for resources to meet ‘needs’ and then looking to get these needs purchased by a third party (the commissioner who we often regard as the customer) we should be focusing our efforts on creating demand. We have created an overcomplicated system.

Any reasonably experienced professional can identify need; we do it all the time. We then outline a case for funding based on how the identified need will improve the lot of an individual, a community, a ‘user’.

Once the cash (supply) is made available what happens? We have to find our beneficiaries and sell, cajole and persuade them.

Too many times our system means we are behind the curve. Our experts need to be salespeople, ‘we have the product we had now better find the user and quick!’

I am (a little) overweight and you can tell me, measure me, get a grant or even better a contract and try to persuade me, create lovely posters, run fabulous sessions but until I want to do something about it there isn’t actually a demand for your wares irrespective of whether you have identified the need or not.

Coproduction is a way of building demand from, by, and with.

We are attempting to establish a much firmer footing for providing services that are alive and thrive and not a range of products aimed at meeting unclaimed needs that need to be sold to a disconnected ‘end-user’.

It will be challenging, it will mean conducting ourselves in ways which reinforce the value in all and, we will have to invite everyone to play their part in ways that we have never done before.

Sam Hopley is chief executive of the Holy Cross Centre Trust which has been delivering co-produced services for the past four years