Author: Polly Toynbee, The Guardian

It was a melancholy pre-election visit at the end of an era and the end of a project symbolising what Labour did – and all it leaves unfinished. I followed the fortunes of the Clapham Park estate as a testbed for judging Labour. With near mystical belief in community activism, Labour gave the nation’s 39 poorest estates a 10-year budget of £56m to transform themselves. The New Deal for Communities was, unlike Cameron’s DIY sham, an authentic Big Society idea, giving serious money to a board with residents holding the controlling vote. It’s a New Labour story – good intent, money put in and a naive belief that symptoms of poverty can be cured without confronting inequality itself.

Clapham Park is 10 minutes’ brisk walk from where I live in south London, and yet a social world away. I lived here for a few months writing my book Hard Work, when I took basic jobs to explore the sub-survivability of the minimum wage. The residents’ board has let me sit in on meetings and drop back from time to time to watch their progress.

Donna Charmaine Henry, chair of the board, sat in the Hand in Hand pub opposite the primary school, recalling when we met 10 years ago. She never expected her life to take this turn. An elegant woman, born in St Kitts and brought up in Oldham, she has lived here since 1975. “I had nothing to do with the community. I came home from work, looked after my family, shut the front door and shut out everything outside,” she says. There was a lot to shut out: drug dealers and prostitutes, now mostly gone, and 40 crack houses.

She was asked out of the blue to stand for election by a neighbour she barely knew: “I had no idea what I was getting into.” It was often a rough ride – only two originals are still on the board. “You need broad shoulders or you go home in tears. The rows! The patience you need!” They give up most evenings, their small flats filled with files, shouldering blame from residents who want everything fixed right now. “But worth it, absolutely, for the things we’ve done.”

Anyone who thinks “community” is cuddly and consensual has never tried it. Political parties exist for good reason, to rationalise disagreement. Though the vote on the estate went 60% in favour, there was vigorous opposition when the board decided to redevelop the worst blocks by handing them over to a housing association to bring in private money. Expecting democracy to flourish in this high-turnover, partly non-English-speaking, low-voting non-community was often more Afghanistan than Ambridge.

Donna says: “When I hear David Cameron and his Big Society expecting people to join in and do everything themselves, it makes me really angry. He has no idea how difficult it is and it needs big government backing. He’s daydreaming.” The project had the money for the board to buy in professionals to run their programmes. But there were, we agree ruefully, Labour daydreams too.

Clapham Park’s 7,300 inhabitants in dilapidated and crime-ridden 1930s and 40s blocks had weak schools and no community groups. The targets set were eye-watering: 100% of housing must reach “decent homes” standard with crime down to national average levels and a halving of fear of crime, and a halving of sickness; GCSE grades, adult qualifications and unemployment must emulate national averages; 85% of residents must say they are “satisfied with the area”. The guiding target said three-quarters must “feel involved” in their community, rather more than in Mayfair or Notting Hill (2%-4% is all professional organisers expect). Donna and her local heroes put the rest of us to shame.

The wonder is how much they achieved. Superhuman effort meant learning spreadsheets and masterplans. Spending money was slow, every penny passported through three tiers of government. Nothing was easy. Was it a success? Local schools have improved greatly. The brightest change is two new children’s centres. According to a 2008 Mori survey, residents’ satisfaction with the estate is up, at 74%. Now only 20% feel unsafe walking at night. Two-thirds think the project has improved the area. As for the people, 6% more have qualifications, smoking is down, 3% more are in work and 10% fewer live on very low incomes. When the project ends this year, a legacy charity hopes to keep Timebank (which swaps chores and favours), the internet community radio station, a bike repair project, youth schemes, the women’s group, coffee mornings for the elderly, and the annual summer festival.

But sadly, there still stands White House, the decrepit 1930s block where I lived briefly. It is not supposed to be there, but there is not even a scheduled date for demolition. True, it looks better. When I lived here netting caught bits falling off the pockmarked facade, but it has been painted, and the staircase is no longer urine-stinking or graffitied. My neighbour, Micky, with his fierce-looking studs that belie a gentle nature, has had central heating fitted, but my old flat and most of the rest are still freezing. The block has had only a lick and a promise. Time spent on estate democracy and the property development crash took its toll in delays.

As everywhere, housing was a great Labour failure. But how do you measure life-changing success when, as in most poor places, half the residents who lived here 10 years ago have gone? People helped to get jobs escape and are replaced by new problem families, so statistics tell only half the story.

Walking back home I thought over this microcosm of New Labour with its hyperbolic promises brought down to earth by hard realities. The social distance between Clapham Park and well-off Clapham where I live is as wide or wider now. Like Britain, the estate is brighter, cleaner, safer and better off with tax credits – but the social chasm between their children’s lives and those 10 minutes away is as deep as ever.

This reminder of how hard it is to make real social change only adds to my despair at what a Conservative government would do. Cuts deeper than Margaret Thatcher’s will hit these people hardest, risking all the progress made. Gordon Brown’s deluded leadership deficiency is haemorrhaging Labour votes. But if centre-left people don’t vote tactically in every seat for whoever best keeps a Conservative out – Labour or Lib Dem regardless of personal preference – it is Donna’s Clapham Park people who will be stricken by George Osborne’s first emergency budget.

CitizensUK five-day leadership training programme explicitly makes the connection between conflict, relationship building and politics, teaching as it does that the word “confront” is derived from the Latin for bringing people face to face.

CitizensUK argues that politics involves face to face encounter in order to settle disputes and that such conflict can either be creative, generating new relationships; or destructive, leading to violence. A central commitment of community organising as a practice is that politics is the non-violent way through which to settle disputes.

A second challenge to liberal conceptions of “good” politics is that community organizing is committed to substantive visions of the good life – hence its reliance on religious institutions.

Most liberal political philosophies favour procedural accounts of justice and are very nervous about religion precisely because religions are committed to “thick” conceptions of the good life. This is seen to be inherently oppressive of individuals and the enemy of tolerance.

Yet it is the experience of community organisers that to motivate people to act they need deep convictions and shared moral values.

The craft of the organiser is to build relationships across different traditions so that instead of working against each other, local congregations and institutions work together to address the real, mostly economic needs of their members.

For this to happen the organiser must not only build relationships but also help identify goods in common: a living wage, safer streets, affordable housing, better schools and the like.

Here we encounter another paradox for liberal politics. Liberalism tends to make equality its ruling principle. Community organising clearly demarcates between leaders and followers, suggesting that when it comes to engaging in political action and public life, not everyone is equal.

Moreover, it works with often very hierarchal and in some cases patriarchal institutions. Community organising as a form of politics is not against equality – most of its campaigns are precisely about demands for greater equality of outcomes.

But it holds that the pursuit of equality without due attention to “fraternity” is the enemy of democracy not its fulfilment. When equality becomes the only organising principle of social and political relations it undermines the forms of relational power that genuinely protect individual freedom.

The dominance of equality focused contractual relations over what we might call covenantal and corporate forms means that in practice, non-contractual forms of life – kinship, neighbourhood, profession, and creed – are dissolved since they are viewed as a restraint on individual freedom.

Liberalism emphasises empowering the individual and the need to free him or her from the “constraints” of religion and tradition.

However, the analysis of community organising suggests that under conditions of economic globalisation the enactment of democratic citizenship by individuals requires traditions and institutions to sustain the possibility of such action. In short, individual freedom is premised on the pursuit of collective freedom.

Without the institutions and the modes of associative power institutions enable, the individual is left utterly naked before the power of the market and the state.

The demos is not an ochlos or crowd in which each does their own bidding; rather it requires coordinated and common action in pursuit of shared goods. Community organising embodies just such a way of moving from a crowd to a demos.

Luke Bretherton is Senior Lecturer in Theology & Politics at King’s College London and writing a book on community organising in the UK and US.

Council assets under pressure

DTAS is running a policy symposium on Asset Transfer on 26^th May.

To register click here   

Extract from report – Public Asset Transfer: Empowering Communities

Summary of findings from interviews

Each interview was introduced with a short explanation of why the review was being carried out with specific references to the Community Empowerment Action Plan, work that has been taking place in other parts of the UK and in particular the significance of the Quirk Review in terms of the Review’s impact on the development of policy and practice in England.

While a significant number of Councils were broadly aware of the existence of the Community Empowerment Action Plan, only a few were aware of the references in the plan to the contribution that community ownership of assets could make, and fewer still were familiar with the findings of the Quirk Review and its report – Making Assets Work.

This may explain why only a very small number of councils were found to be making a direct connection, either strategically or operationally, between how they managed their assets and the how communities within the local authority area could be supported to become more empowered and resilient.

Asset management policy – key findings

Aim of asset management. The overarching purpose which characterised  the approach of most councils towards managing their assets was to have an estate of the correct size and condition which is fit for purpose in terms of being able to meet their service delivery obligations. 

Recent increase in proactive approaches the management of assets.  A significant number of councils reported that they had recently undertaken comprehensive asset reviews and were in the process of implementing newly agreed asset management strategies.  The key drivers behind this increase in proactive asset management activity appears to have been a combination of the recent Audit Scotland report, internally driven processes of service rationalisation, and external budgetary pressures. Of these, the principle driver of policy was most commonly reported as the need to rationalise assets in order to reduce the associated revenue costs.  This pressure had intensified in recent months as the prospects of severe constraints in public spending have become more certain. The need to generate capital receipts was also considered to be  important but current market conditions were severely restricting activity in this respect.

Strategies not joined up.  No council cited the disposal or transfer of assets to community groups as being part of, or reflected in, any formal strategy or council policy relating to community empowerment.  A small number of councils reported that they were familiar with the correlation between community development and asset ownership and as a result were operating informal policies which had been informed by the experience of council officers and which had evolved over many years through local custom and practice. In general however the absence of any formal local authority strategy or policy was not necessarily considered to be a barrier to asset transfer. Most respondents viewed any barriers as being external to the council.

Disposal of surplus assets.  For the majority of councils, asset disposal was typically considered as an option only after the council had declared an asset to be surplus to its service requirements.  The most common description of Council policy in these circumstances was to offer the asset, in the first instance, to community planning partners and thereafter to place it on the open market. For these purposes, the community sector was not considered to be a CP partner. Whether this reflected a wider issue of the community sector’s engagement in the local community planning process was beyond the scope of the review.

Asset transfer practice – key findings

Ad hoc and demand led.  Asset transfer to community organisations was referred to by most councils as being ad hoc and in the main arising out of direct approaches to the council from local groups.

Leases rather than title.  With very few exceptions, councils viewed the concept of asset transfer as referring to the transfer of management responsibility through a lease arrangement rather than the transfer of outright ownership. The leases could vary in length from medium term (15 – 20 years) to long term (99 year lease). Councils that expressed a preference for leases referred to the need for some assurance that these public assets could ultimately be brought back under council control if it were considered necessary. In addition, the majority of councils expressed concern that if public assets were to be disposed of, best value had to be the principle consideration and therefore consideration of disposal at less than market value would be unlikely.  Several councils argued that there is no material difference or advantage to be gained when choosing between the transfer of outright ownership and providing a very long lease.

Sale at less than market valuation.  However a small number of councils were willing to consider the case for disposing at less than market value where community benefit could be demonstrated. Current regulations require councils to seek Ministerial approval (Section 74) before making such a transfer and although the government is currently consulting on whether this requirement should be lifted, councils did not view the additional requirement as an impediment to the transfer of assets.

Volume and value of transfers.  It proved difficult to obtain definitive information on the scale and value of disposals/transfers which had taken place over the past few years and which could in any way be extrapolated to describe an accurate national picture or trends over the last three years.   Overall, the scale and value of assets transferred through lease arrangements over this period appears to be relatively minimal, and with respect to the transfer of outright ownership, the level of reported activity was negligible.

Type of asset transferred.  The main asset class which councils consider in this context is what might be referred to as “community amenity” assets: former town halls, village halls, community centres, bowling greens, golf courses etc. In many cases these were being leased at peppercorn rents and sometimes with the council retaining an element of maintenance responsibility. However, a number of councils appeared to be reviewing their approach to this asset class because many of these assets are no longer considered core to service delivery, give rise to increasing revenue costs and there is additional pressure to be more transparent re how financial support is provided to groups. (“Following the public pound” report by Audit Scotland cited).  A variety of approaches are being adopted or considered including large scale transfers on a locality basis into an arm’s length trust, case by case reviews, and putting leases on more commercial terms with corresponding grants from the council to offset increased costs to groups where this is consistent with council policy objectives and priorities.

Demand or supply led?  It is difficult to determine whether the emphasis on this type of community asset reflected a general demand deficit from community groups or a lack of an appreciation on the part of councils as to why or how different types of asset, with more obvious commercial potential, might be of interest/value to a community.   For instance while many councils appeared to be reviewing other asset classes (e.g. offices, schools) with a view to rationalising their estate, there was no evidence that disposal of these assets to the community sector would typically be considered. 

Demands for ownership blamed on funders.  In general, councils reported limited demand from community groups to purchase assets outright.  It was expressed that most communities were content with long lease arrangements. Where interest in assuming outright ownership had been expressed, a number of councils voiced concerns that this was this was a result of grant conditions stipulated by certain funders rather than the result of genuine community led interest. This was not entirely borne out by the feedback from communities – some of whom reported that their local councils had not responded favourably to their expressed interest in taking on outright ownership.  However, a number of councils indicated that they could become more enthusiastic around sales rather than long leases in the future due to the anticipated budgetary restriction in the short to medium term.

Physical condition of asset.  Councils would normally seek to transfer a building in its current state of repair although some refurbishment might be considered where a third sector organisation was going to use the asset in order to deliver a service as part of a service level agreement with the Council.

The role of elected members.   Elected members were described as having both a corporate and constituency role.  Very few responses indicated any level of political leadership at a council-wide level in relation to promoting the asset ownership by communities but individual councillors were seen to be highly influential in making the case for particular projects in their wards. In more rural local authorities where communities are more dispersed, the local councillor appeared to have more influence and was able to argue for different terms of transfer than might exist elsewhere in the local authority area.  A number of councils reported that the changing political complexion of their councils since the last election has had an impact in terms of the overall willingness to engage in asset transfer (50% first time councillors at last election)

Understanding the rationale for asset transfer.  A number of councils appeared to acknowledge that community ownership or control of assets is potentially empowering for local communities and can result in better local services (especially in areas which might not otherwise be a high priority for council services).   However there was no evidence that this perspective was formally reflected in any council policies.  

Inherent risks of asset transfer.  Most councils reported that there are a number of significant risks involved in transferring assets to communities.  Most commonly cited were concerns over the capacity of groups to manage, maintain and develop assets.  This concern was linked to a concern around the longevity and sustainability of groups – the cyclical nature of the stability of community groups was often referred to. Councils were concerned that where they had transferred buildings to community groups, there nonetheless remained an undiminished public duty to step in if things went wrong (especially where iconic local buildings were concerned). In those circumstances the overriding concern was that the council would be taking an asset back in a worse condition than when it was transferred or having to operate an asset in a locality which would not necessarily be a priority for the council.  A number of examples were cited but further work is required to assess whether this general view is supported by the evidence..

Inclusive communities.  Some councils noted concern about how representative and inclusive some community groups were and that some groups appeared unwilling to share their facilities with the wider community.

Underlying attitudes.  On a number of occasions, councils raised concerns that asset transfer was akin to ‘selling off the family silver’  and therefore was a reason not to engage in it. This was linked to both losing control of an asset once it had been transferred,as well as forgoing potential future capital receipts.  The same concerns did not seem to apply to disposals on the open market which suggests that a different approach is applied to transfers to the community sector.  Many councils appeared to start from the assumption that there was little demand or interest from community groups to take on ownership of assets.  Consequently many councils felt it unnecessary to expect or propose to communities that they should consider taking on the burdens and risks of running an asset in circumstances where the council was prepared to fulfil that function. 

Concerns about capacity.  Many councils expressed concerns about the organisational capacity of groups to own, maintain and develop assets in the long term. Whether this is a generally held perception or whether it is based on practical experience was difficult to determine as very few concrete examples were presented. Only a very few councils said they would commit resources towards building the capacity of groups where capacity (or lack of it) was being identified as a risk factor in a potential transfer.

Funding and resources.  A serious concern for all councils was the lack of external funding and different forms of finance that are available to community groups who wish to acquire assets, especially at full market values. In addition the lack of available sources of ongoing revenue support to assist in the post acquisition phase was frequently cited as a barrier.  Given how few councils felt able to commit resources to build local capacity, a significant barrier to increased levels of transfer was the lack of external support available to groups.

Conclusions and implications for further work

The Review Process.  It is worth noting that the findings contained in this report are only a snapshot of how officers in particular sections of the each local authority responded to the researchers. Given the apparent absence of formal strategic linkages between approaches to asset management and community development and empowerment, it is quite possible that different perspectives on these issues would have been proffered if different sections of the council had engaged in the interviews.

Levels of awareness less well developed.  Despite this, it seems that the general levels of awareness of the key issues surrounding the community asset agenda is not as developed in Scotland as it is in parts of England. The development of the remaining elements of this programme of work will need to reflect this and consider the different organisational role and status of local authorities in Scotland to those in England..

Opportunities and risks in future.  The next few years could be potent ones for increased levels of asset transfer as many Councils throughout Scotland may be looking to rationalise their assets. However, there are risks regarding the type and quality of assets which could be on offer and the capacity of community groups to respond to opportunities.

Ownership vs. Long lease. The case for community asset ownership needs to be promoted and encouraged in a way which reflects the current levels of activity and general awareness of this agenda – both in terms of why communities might be interested in assets and how asset transfer can be of benefit to local council– particularly from the point of view of elected members.Furthermore, it would be worth exploring models of ownership and leasing, and the benefits that flow from each option. This could be taken forward during the remainder of the programme.

Resources are key.  Funding/financing and support to groups are critical issues which need to be addressed.  There appears to be a need for more and better designed funding and finance programmes.  The model pioneered by the Adventure Capital Fund (now called the Social Investment Business) in England and adopted in the English Government’s Communitybuilders programme is relevant (an integrated programme of feasibility, business planning and support; grant funding; and loan financing including patient capital) could be studied to assess applicability in Scotland.

National policy needs to connect locally.  A stronger focus on the community empowerment agenda from Scottish Government, backed up with resources, may help to create a more positive policy framework within which councils could respond. More specifically, the new guidance for councils promised in the CEAP on disposal at less than market value could also provide an opportunity to make a clearer, more positive statement about community asset ownership.

Promoting community anchor organisations.  Active promotion and support of the concept of community anchors by Scottish Government could encourage a more strategic and sustainable approach and would link community empowerment objectives nationally with community ownership of assets locally.

A pioneering model……
200 years ago in the poor parish of Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire, the local minister Rev Henry Duncan, set about the task of alleviating poverty, setting up the first savings bank.
 
This allowed people to pay small sums into an account and gradually build up savings. The people’s bank became a lifeline for many communities. It wasn’t in business to rip people off, but rather had a social conscience. Henry Duncan’s pioneering model was soon imitated in almost 100 countries. Out of this idealism, the Trustee Savings Bank grew.
 
Fast forward to 1985. The Trustees Savings Bank was floated on the stock market. As a way of compensating savers for the loss of their bank, four independent charitable foundations were established, including the Foundation in Scotland, and given shares. Rather than receive dividends, each had its own covenant set up in order to distribute 1% of pre-tax profits back to local communities.  Each of the four Foundations has a separate agreement with the Bank and although terms and conditions are similar, the share of the 1% pre-tax profit they receive is different. The Foundation in Scotland receives almost 20% of the monies that come from this arrangement.

In 1995, when the TSB Group and Lloyds Bank merged, Lloyds committed itself to supporting the work of the charitable foundations and continued to give 1% of pre-tax profits as set out in the covenant. Lloyds is not a donor to the Foundation nor is payment to the Foundation a benevolent, voluntary act. Funds are the Foundation’s by right of shareholding and the Group pays in line with their legal obligation.

To date, the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland has received over £82 million from the Lloyds Banking Group and distributed around £85 million. This has been a huge investment in community projects throughout Scotland.

Then the recession hit……and after lengthy negotiations Lloyds TSB have chosen to terminate the historic covenant with the Foundation.

The Foundation is now in a nine year notice period, after which the connection with Lloyds Banking Group and the legacy of the Trustee Savings Bank will be severed.

In the meantime, the lack of funds from the share of pre-tax profits means that the Foundation has been forced to sell some of its shares in the bank in order to continue its grant making.  In April 2010 the Foundation announced that the funding stream made possible by the sale of these shares is to be named after Henry Duncan, the founder of the TSB.

Save the Foundation

Charities and community groups from across Scotland have joined forces to save the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland. The charitable foundation is facing an uncertain future after Lloyds Banking Group ended the agreement that guarantees its share of the Bank’s pre-tax profits.
 
Launched on 6th May 2010, the campaign has one aim:
 
To push Lloyds Banking Group to reverse their decision to terminate the existing covenant with the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland.
 
This is a people’s petition, which represents the grassroots nature of the campaign. This campaign is about the communities and individuals across Scotland who will lose out on services and support if Lloyds Banking Group fails to reinstate the existing covenant with the Foundation.
 
At the request of its members, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has agreed to act as a facilitator for the campaign.

http://www.savethefoundation.org/Home/signthepetition.aspx

Author: David James, Observer

Something special happened when Portsmouth won the FA Cup two years ago. I’m not talking about the atmosphere in the stadium, or what happened on the pitch or in the Wembley dressing room, unforgettable though they all were. I’m talking about what happened in the town when we set off on our victory parade. To my absolute amazement, more than 200,000 people gathered on Southsea Common to cheer us on. Pensioners, waving, cheering and clapping, people hanging out of windows – locals who possibly had never even set foot in our stadium before. It was some sight.

That show of appreciation made for a very, very special moment indeed. The events of that day got me thinking about the relationship between a football club and its local population. It seemed to me that too many clubs take their community responsibilities all too lightly. Having players visit a local hospital every Christmas is a nice gesture, but what about sustained relationships with the local community, and the mutual benefits they might bring? The game appears to have forgotten its community roots, lost in a glitzy world of superstars and big transfer fees. But what might be the result of a more holistic focus?

The experiences Portsmouth have gone through this past year should be a warning. Football needs to learn that when the cost of trying to survive in the Premier League threatens the very existence of your club, the price is just too high. Killing yourself off in an attempt to stay in a league you can’t afford is pure madness.

Perhaps it is time to look at alternative ways for a club to exist: no longer in a financial bubble that could burst at any time, but in dialogue and accordance with the local community. It still amazes me that big investors can buy into football clubs, spend millions on transfer fees and wages, and yet have so little to do with their club’s community.

Yes, most clubs do have community programmes – and Portsmouth have one of the best I’ve experienced in my career – but what if we all went further? A club who engage with their local community are more likely to be supported when they fall on hard times and over the years there have been numerous examples of this – from fans here bailing out the club through the SOS Pompey campaign in the 1970s, to Charlton’s supporters armed with picks and shovels, volunteering to help renovate The Valley. More recently, Exeter showed what can be achieved by a supporters trust. After private ownership almost sent the club into administration, with two board members convicted of fraud, the Trust took over and the club have since climbed the divisions from the Conference to League One. It seems clear to me: the more supporters are involved in a football club, the greater the likelihood of accountability and, crucially, greater financial responsibility in the boardroom.

I didn’t always feel so passionately about community. As a young man in the 1980s I thought all that stuff was a bit soft. I had grown up with the idea that football was a man’s game and clubs should have an equally hard persona. I used to go to with friends from school to watch the north London derby and we’d point out all the hardnuts kicking off in the North Stand. I remember seeing Graham Roberts put Charlie Nicholas in the front row and thinking: “Yeah! Get in there, you’re hard!” There was a lot of testosterone going round.

When I joined Watford things began to change. It was there that I experienced my first encounter with community work. As young players we were expected to visit the hospital on matchdays, two or three of us sent round the wards every week to speak to the patients. It was a genuine commitment and it brought out a different side of me.

I have seen similar things at Portsmouth, a community that has benefited from club projects and support – from the local Reading Stars literacy bus that helps children and families reconnect with each other, to the Beneficial Foundation, an independent charity that looks after the needs of people with learning difficulties. They have a fantastic project that helps to maintain old people’s gardens as a burglary prevention strategy.

At Portsmouth we may be down, but we’re not out. With a creative outlook, and the backing of the town behind us, we could find ourselves going from strength to strength.

BLACK Isle residents keen to learn how to grow their own fruit and vegetables have an exciting opportunity to learn from experts. 

Households can now sign up for Grow North, a year-long programme of training and tailored support in growing food in the local area.

The project is being run by Transition Black Isle, a local community group which has brought £85,000 of funding to the area for projects to help the Black Isle become more resilient in the face of peak oil and climate change.  The money, from the Scottish Government’s Climate Challenge Fund, will support a range of schemes to cut food miles and decrease dependence on fossil fuels.

Grow North’s newly appointed project officer Sheila Wickens said: “It is possible to grow a very wide range of fruit and vegetables in the Black Isle, providing food over an extended season.

“Many people grew up with a tradition of growing food in their families; however in recent years people have been less inclined to produce their own, with a greater reliance on food from the supermarket.

“There is now an explosion of interest in growing food, with the demand for allotments in Scotland soaring by 40% over the last two years, local allotment waiting-lists in four Black Isle villages, and garden centres increasing their sales of vegetable seeds.

“Many of the books, magazines and television programmes on the subject relate to growing conditions in the south of the UK. Grow North aims to provide practical support for 50 households in learning how to grow, look after and use a range of crops that can be grown successfully on the Black Isle.”

The main focus of the project will be a series of eight training days, which will take place monthly throughout the year, allowing participants to see their crops grow at study sites.  The course will be hands-on, and participants will be able to try out for themselves all aspects of growing, from planting seeds, to potting on, planting out and harvesting during the training. The training fee will be £40 up front or £50 if paying in instalments. A concessionary rate of £20 is available for those on low incomes.

Participants will be able to take home some of the seedlings and plants that they have handled, to grow in their own growing spaces, be it at home or in a neighbouring garden.  The course will also cover planning your garden, dealing with pests, looking after fruit, improving the soil, composting and preserving garden produce.

Practical help days will involve participants receiving and offering help from the network for activities such as erecting polytunnels, clearing rough ground and creating raised beds. Participants will also get the opportunity to visit several established grow-your-own gardens to see how it is done, see a range of different approaches and to be inspired.

Sheila Wickens, who has been growing her own fruit and vegetables for nearly ten years, added: “This practical approach will provide new growers with the support they need to get going, and make the most of their gardens to provide food for the household.   It will also be a great way to meet others interested in growing, which will be invaluable in comparing progress of crops locally, sharing ideas and experiences.”

The first training days will be taking place in early to mid May.   If you are interested in taking part in the project, please contact Sheila on 01463 870223 or e-mail grownorth@transitionblackisle.org

SMK was established in 2005 to help develop a new generation of campaigners who are tackling the root causes of injustice. Set up in memory of Dame Sheila McKechnie, SMK is entirely dedicated to helping campaigners create positive and lasting social change.

SMK runs programmes for individuals and groups providing support, advice and a place to share information on key areas of effective campaigning: from strategy, tactics, and targets to evaluating successful campaigns.

Whatever your issue, whether you are trying to improve disabled access on local transport or promote solutions to conflict, we can help you to develop new tactics and plan high impact campaigns through our awards programme, workshops and training programmes, and bespoke consultancy.

SMK Awards 2010

The annual SMK Campaigner Awards provide a support programme for emerging and grassroots campaigners.

The awards are for individuals who are new to campaigning or operating with few resources and who show passion, tenacity and the potential to create change – locally, nationally or globally. You might not see yourself as a “campaigner” but if you are demonstrating commitment to a cause then SMK wants to hear from you.

The awards scheme offers a development package to winners, the aim is to equip campaigners with the skills they need to make a greater impact and achieve real change.The package of support does not include cash prizes but uses a model of action learning to share knowledge and acquire skills. This programme is completely bespoke involving an initial assessment; one-to-one coaching sessions; development workshops; and shadowing or mentoring opportunities. Read more about what is involved and what previous winners have received at the Award winners support programme page.

We grant awards to campaigners working across a wide range of issues. You can look through the awards categories or FAQs to learn more about the programme.

We are now accepting applications for 2010. Download an application form for yourself or, if you know of a campaigner who would benefit from our programme you can nominate someone you know for an award.

Applications can be submitted until 12 noon GMT on Monday 28th June 2010 Visit http://www.smk.org.uk/ for more info

More than 100 housing associations have agreed to introduce the ‘living wage’ for their staff.

The deal means that none of the 2500 employees covered by the agreement will be paid less than £7 an hour.

The Scottish Living Wage campaign was launched by the STUC, Unison, Faith in Community Scotland and the Poverty Alliance in a bid to persuade employers in the private, public and voluntary sectors to raise the salaries of low paid staff.

Campaigners argue that many workers who are paid the National Minimum Wage, or just above it, struggle to provide for themselves or their families.

The Scottish Living Wage, currently set at £7 an hour based on calculations done by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, has already been backed by Glasgow City Council, which signed up last year, and Scottish Enterprise, which agreed the minimum with its staff last month.

Representatives of the housing association movement will be presented with an employers’ award at the STUC Congress in Dundee tomorrow after becoming the latest organisation to negotiate a living wage deal.

Foster Evans, director of employers’ association EVH – which led the negotiations for the 101 housing associations involved – said he was delighted to be associated with the scheme. “The union Unite raised it as part of their negotiations with us, and agreed to accept a cost of living increase at slightly below the rate of inflation to enable us to introduce it,” he said. “It may not be the most radical change ever but it is a strong signal of intent. We want to be amongst the increasing group of employers that support basic social justice initiatives.”

Mr Evans said the staff who would benefit included cleaning and catering staff in some housing associations as well as some workers in sheltered housing. He added that most housing associations employ their staff directly and board members who give up their time to run local housing associations tend to be well placed to see the benefit of better pay in their own local communities.

Unite regional officer Jackson Cullinane said: “The inclusion of our request for a Living Wage was based on our union’s firm commitment to address low pay and pay inequality. Its achievement will benefit women and young workers in particular.”

He added that the agreement to forego part of an inflation-linked pay increase for all in order to benefit the lowest paid was a testimony to the principles and values of members.

Eddie Follan, campaigns officer of the Scottish Poverty Alliance added: “This is a great example of how the living wage can be used in pay negotiations.”

He said the campaign would continue to press for more employers in the public sector to back the standard. An estimated 700,000 employees in Scotland are paid less than the living wage.

Author: Press and Journal 23/03/2010

Scotland’s land reform legislation is ensuring the long-term sustainability of communities the length and breadth of the country.

More than 60 communities bodies have submitted over 112 applications to purchase land and almost 80 applications have been approved since the Land Reform Bill was passed in 2004.

Successful community buy-outs include:
    * Comrie in Perthshire where a disused prisoner of war camp has been used to provide allotments, playing fields, storage and business units
    * Silver burn in Midlothian where a disused water tank has been turned into a community centre
    * Neilson in Renfrewshire where a former bank is now a community hub

Speaking during a conference on land reform hosted by Highland Council, Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham said:

“Community buyouts of land and other assets have played a central role in empowering and creating long term sustainability for communities throughout Scotland.

“Having the ability to direct their own future has promoted community confidence, developed participation and cohesion as well as ensuring a sense of pride and long term sustainability.

“While the legislation has been successful so far, it is important that we maintain an open dialogue. We must consider lessons learned and whether new approaches should be adopted.

The issue of funding of community buyouts of land has been a hot topic in recent months and I would urge communities to take a creative approach.

“While the Big Lottery is the largest funder it is not the only one. Using a number of different funders to secure land is a very successful one which more should consider.”

The Community right to buy in Part 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 provides the opportunity for community bodies representing rural areas in Scotland with less than 10,00 head of population to register an interest in and buy that registered land once it is offered for sale. It provides community Bodies with a pre-emptive right to buy the land in which they have registered a community interest.

Community bodies have so far registered an interest in land including fields, woodlands and a range of other assets such as buildings, such as churches, a school and a community interest. The right to buy requires a willing seller. A community may in fact register its community interest and that land not come up for sale. A registration continues for five years and community bodies have the opportunity to re-register that interest. The first communities to extend their interest will do so in late 2009.

Statistics on the community right to buy are:
    * There have been 113 registrations of which 79 (or 70.5 per cent) have been approved by Scottish Ministers
    * To date 23 applications have had the chance to go ahead and purchase land. Of these 7 have been successful and a further 2 were concluded outwith the Act. A further one is currently concluding the transfer of land
    * Of the applications approved by Ministers, the right to buy has been triggered on 27 applications (24 per cent)

There are 5 rights to buy proceeding at present:
    * Camuscross (Isle of Skye) (Allt Duisdale reservoir)
    * South Lochaber (former Glencoe Hospital)
    * The Isle of Bute (Rhubodach Forest)
    * Benbecula (parcels of MOD land)
    * South Kintryre (Machrihanish airbase)

Extract from the summary of MAKING GOOD SOCIETY – the Report of the Commisssion of Inquiry into the future of civil society in the UK and Republic of Ireland  of final report of t

Now is the time to reshape the financial system to align it better with values that emphasise responsibility, good governance, human well-being, and environmental sustainability. The full meaning of the recent financial and economic crisis will not be clear for many years, but what is clear is that it has prompted a widespread desire for change. Governments have been primarily concerned with restoring the system, through bailouts and new regulation. But the Commission believes this is an opportunity to reshape the financial system, not just to avoid future crises, but also to align it with values that emphasise responsibility, good governance, human well-being and environmental sustainability. We advocate growing a more civil economy, which requires a bigger direct economic role for civil society, as well as more open and responsible practices in the rest of the economy. Civil society has long been directly involved in economic activity. In the 19th century, strong friendly societies, consumer cooperatives and building societies developed new financial services to meet the needs of a rapidly urbanising population. Today, civil society remains involved in many areas of the economy, including retail supply chains, such as fair trade and the trade justice movement, energy production, and health and social care. Social enterprise has increased significantly, and in the UK is estimated to have a combined turnover of £24 billion a year. The co-operative movement has a turnover of £28 billion.

What is a civil economy?
A thriving civil economy mirrors a thriving democracy. Constitutional and accountable political institutions supported by political parties, an independent judiciary, a free press, impartial law, civic bodies, and an involved citizenry sustain democracy in a civil society. The parallel institutions of a civil economy can be understood to be constitutional and accountable corporations supported by engaged shareowners and their accountable representatives, independent monitors, credible standards, and vigilant and active civil society associations participating in the marketplace. There are a number of characteristics of a more civil economy:✦
• It is open and pluralist, welcoming entrepreneurship and innovation, whether financial or social, through traditional company or other structures, including mutuals and social enterprise.
• Economic actors are clear about their responsibilities and accountable to their owners, but have due regard for other stakeholders, including communities and workers, and for theenvironment.
• Institutional owners, such as pension funds, are accountable to their savers and push corporations towards sustainable prosperity through responsible management.
• Information standards and flows allow for independent scrutiny on the part of individuals, civil society and the media.
• The success of the economy is not measured in terms of short-term economic growth or financial gains, but in terms of the sustainable well-being of current and future generations.

The legacy of civil society activity in the economy
• Campaigning, economic boycotts and court action in relation to the slave trade contributed to the development of human rights legislation and economic sanctions.
• The labour movement led to the development of employment law and health and safety regulation.
• The environmental movement helped to develop carbon trading, green businesses and the organic movement.
• The trade justice and antiglobalisation movements that emerged to address poverty in the global south led to Fairtrade and have created shifts in public values.
• Concerns over technological monopolies led to civil society developing the open source movement and the creative commons license.

But civil society’s economic roles are more marginal than they once were. The creation of the welfare state undermined much of the rationale of civil society savings and insurance initiatives, and business expanded its role in the provision of bank accounts and mortgages for poor communities. Meanwhile, the moral voice that allowed civil society to influence the rest of the economy in the 19th century – for example, championing reforms to end slavery and child labour – became muted. The Commission believes that a strong and healthy economy depends on a plurality of organisational forms, business models and values. We therefore advocate:
 first, building up a greater diversity of economic organisations rooted in civil society, including co-operatives, social enterprises, charities and trusts,
 and, second, increasing the influence of civil society on decision-makers throughout the economy, including regulators. Specifically, the Commission advocates
increasing the transparency and accountability of financial institutions through mandatory reporting for major institutional investors, requiring them to set out the social and environmental impact of their investments and how they exercise their voting powers, and mandatory lending disclosure for major financial institutions to ensure they are serving the needs of all communities, without discrimination (drawing on international models such as the US Community Reinvestment Act).
The Commission also argues for action to enhance pluralism in the financial sector and sees virtue in more clearly tiered financial system, with different rules, capital requirements and regulations for local finance, national finance and global activities. The large public holdings in banks have brought an unparalleled opportunity to restructure financial services so that they better serve society. This would include remutualisation of failed financial institutions at a local or regional scale, alongside mutual insurance and mutual scrutiny of these institutions to contain risk.

Civil society should champion the development of low-cost financial products that reflect people’s changing needs. These could include mortgages that allow for flexible repayment options and new investment vehicles for people who want to hold their savings in forms that benefit the local community and economy.

Despite the scale and resilience of the social economy, mainstream financial institutions and fund managers have not significantly invested in it. We favour institutional investors setting a minimum benchmark of 2.5% investment in social enterprises that not only generate profit, but also produce social and environmental returns. Regulators should see this as an essential part of prudent fund  management. The Commission also advocates increasing the power and voice of civil society by strengthening its capacity to influence financial institutions and regulators through building its own specialist institutions that have the knowledge and authority to challenge conventional financial thinking. Civil society also has an important role to play in developing and promoting independent, credible standards, so that people can make informed choices about which financial products they
purchase. Specifically, we recommend a ‘comprehensibility threshold’: no product should remain on the market if more than half of its consumers misunderstand fundamental features of how it works.

The time is also ripe for mobilising citizen investors, the millions of ordinary people with pension plans and savings, so that their future incomes are derived from companies that operate responsibly and sustainably.
 And organisations such as charitable foundations and faith-based organizations that have between them tens of billions of pounds in investment assets should pool their collective financial and moral clout to grow responsible and social investment.
Stable, responsible and transparent financial activity must be at the centre of any vision for the future of the financial sector and therefore a key component of the civil economy. The financial sector can only develop these with increased civil society activity.