Making good society
Carnegie UK
March, 2010
Foreword
Geoff Mulgan, Commission Chair
Take a few streets in a typical town in Donegal or Denbighshire, Devon or Dumfriesshire and you don’t need to look far to find civil society. Whether it’s visible in the streets or behind closed doors, every community hosts an extraordinary array of civil society activity including sports clubs, care for family members or local residents, homework clubs and support networks. As individuals, many of us are active in local groups, charities, in churches, mosques and temples or trade unions. We play our part in campaigns to end poverty or combat climate change. As consumers we support ethical products offered by co-operatives or social enterprises.
Civil society is not governed by profit or power but by values and enthusiasms – a word that originally meant the god within us. Some of us are inspired by frustration and anger, others by hope, and others still by fun. Together, the many parts of civil society contribute enormously to our everyday quality of life.
The good news is that right across the UK and Ireland the daily life of civil society activity is thriving – with no signs of long-term decline and decay, or for that matter any rise in selfishness and other ills, despite the pressures of recession. Civil society is made up of a myriad of circles of freedom and circles of cooperation that have proved to be remarkably resilient.
But it’s also clear that civil society is less than it could be. For a century or more it has been pushed to the margins by commerce and the state, which have claimed the lion’s share of resources and power. It has been paid lip-service, but generally neglected. And it has lost ground in areas it was once strong, like finance or childhood.
Today we can see the convergence of both long and short-term trends which point to a major change in the position of civil society associations. The long-term trends can be traced back to many sources – the rising economic importance of charities and social enterprises globally; the counterculture of the 1960s; the global flowering of civil society activity in the wake of 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall; declining trust in politics and the rise of a culture in which people seek and expect expression and voice.
The short-term push to strengthen civil society comes from the coincidence of three crises: the financial crisis and its economic effects, which have sharply reduced the status and confidence of market liberalism; the ecological crisis, which has moved centre-stage as never before in the wake of the Copenhagen Summit at the end of 2009; and a crisis of political confidence, particularly in Britain, because of an accumulation of events, including most recently the scandal of MPs’ expenses.
Each crisis poses very different questions. But it is now impossible to imagine plausible answers to these questions which do not involve a widened role for civil society associations – as the complement to representative democracy; as the place where a different kind of economy takes shape, or is being rediscovered; and as the site for everyday solutions to the effects of rising carbon emissions. This makes now a remarkable time of opportunity. We need to set our sights far beyond the narrow arguments about contracts or fiscal treatment for the voluntary sector, and look instead at how civil society activity can shape our world, and how we can make the transition from an age of ‘me’ to an age of ‘we’. Civil society was born out of the idea that we do best when we work with others, and when we understand our interests as shared with others. That idea is more relevant than ever in an intimately interconnected world.
Here the Inquiry Commission sets out an argument for putting civil society at the centre. It’s not a blueprint or a detailed roadmap – but describes the directions of change, the critical choices, and the many things which could be done by governments, foundations, corporations and civil society associations themselves to make the most of the moment. While the Commission fully endorses the broad direction of travel outlined in this report, we do not pretend that its contents represent a complete consensus.
Given the many thorny issues addressed by the Inquiry, it will come as no surprise that there were many divergent views among Commissioners, although throughout our work we were repeatedly surprised at how convergent many of the discussions were at the many Inquiry events. There was a common appetite for change, shared frustrations about the challenge of influencing systemic change, and a sense that the door is open for some radical breaks.
This has been very much an inquiry of civil society, rather than civil society: shaped by hundreds of participants who shared their ideas and their passions. The Inquiry Commission and the Carnegie UK Trust are very grateful to all of the many individuals and organisations who took part, and helped form the recommendations made here and the associated research.
The Commission are also very appreciative of the dedication and hard work of the Inquiry staff team. Any omissions and errors are obviously our responsibility – but we hope that many will see the fruits of their contribution in what follows. This is a great time of possibility for civil society to spread its values not just in fields such as care and community, where it is already strong, but also in fields where it is relatively weak, including the economy and the media, energy and politics. We believe that if that happens, everyone stands to benefit. That is the ultimate promise of the hundreds of projects, ventures and organisations mentioned in th report, which add up to a radical vision of how our society could grow, not just in material wealth but in social wealth too.
Download full report here http://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/files/main/Makinggoodsociety.pdf

Living with the land – Summary

Scottish Environment Link

1. The Scottish Parliament recently passed a Climate Change Act which has been described as world-leading. One of its provisions gives Scotland the potential to have a genuinely world leading Sustainable Land Use Strategy (SLUS). This was widely welcomed by member bodies of Scottish Environment LINK, a network with a combined membership of over 500,000 people. The SLUS is badly needed; although several strategies already exist for various types of land, these are largely for specialists in each field, and there are too few connections between them. This encourages a sectoral mentality and a single purpose for each piece of land, rather than a wider view of the multiple benefits which are the reality in most parts of Scotland.

2. Although its main purpose is to tackle climate change, the SLUS provides real opportunities to deliver other public objectives. It has potential to support landscape and wildlife protection, to ensure more co-ordinated planning and delivery between agencies, to reward multi-benefit land use and to resolve conflicts between different land uses. To do this effectively it needs a long-term vision, strong principles, clear definitions and as broad a scope as possible. Critically,it needs to be based on the internationally-accepted definition of sustainable development, in which environmental and social goals genuinely have equal status to economic ones.

3. This paper sets out LINK’s proposals for the vision, principles and definitions which should underpin this Strategy, its suggestions regarding its status and scope, and its views on the principal issues which it must address. We look forward to discussing our views with all interested parties.

For copy of report see http://http/www.scotlink.org/files/publication/LINKReports/LINKReportLivingwithLand.pdf

Community Learning and Development ?
 
London CITIZENS
London CITIZENS is a powerful grassroots charity working with local people for local people. Our goal is social, economic and environmental justice. We meet that goal by training people of all ages, faiths and backgrounds to take action together for change. Our dynamic campaigns have secured many victories for the people of London. Beginning our journey twelve years ago as TELCO, our membership today includes over one hundred civil society organisations across the city.
 
What London CITIZENS do
London Citizens develops skills and leadership capacity in the neighbourhoods where we work through hands-on experience of taking action for change, through formal training and with the support of professional organisers. When members identify an issue requiring change, we look together at who can make it happen, and how we can enter into a constructive relationship with them.We know that real change mostly happens after a struggle which involves holding ourselves and the powerful to account. This takes courage, and isn’t always welcome. But again and again we find that after the initial tension, London Citizens members win real respect and succeed in bringing about much needed change.Our members make decisions together democratically on a regular basis. In bringing together different interest groups into a trusted forum to listen to each other and to take action together, we play an active role in breaking down mistrust and suspicion across diverse communities.
 
London CITIZENS campaigns
London CITIZENS campaigns on issues that matter to people in their communities. Local people decide what they want to change, and together with London CITIZENS we make it happen. Below are some of our current campaigns. 
 
London CITIZENS CitySafe Campaign  builds the power of local communities to tackle crime and the fear of crime.
 
Where it comes fromCitySafe is now top of the London CITIZENS agenda. Over the last 18 months, 10 young people from London CITIZENS member groups have been murdered on the streets of the capital. After 6 months of Mayoral Election 2008 Listening Campaign, London CITIZENS voted CitySafe number one priority in March 2008 at the Delegates Assembly. The CitySafe approach has been developed through conversation and research involving hundreds of young people, youth workers, teachers and community leaders. At the heart of this process has been the voice of young people saying we are not the problem, we are the solution.
 
The Living Wage Campaign
 
What is the London living wage
The London Living Wage (LLW) is a London weighted minimum wage, which takes into account the higher living costs of London. The figure currently stands at £7.60 per hour; £1.87 above the National Minimum Wage
 
Who works out the LLW?
The London Living Wage is worked out by the Greater London Authority (GLA) London Living wage Unit.
What is the campaign calling for?
That all employers become Living Wage Employers. For a list of what this includes Living Wage Employers
Successful?
Since its launch back in 2001, the campaign has put an estimated £24 million back in the pockets of low-waged workers.

Author: Jeremy Cooke, BBC News

Island hopes for a windy bounty
23.03.10
It is among one of the most remote corners of Britain. It is also one of the most unspoilt landscapes this country has to offer.
But right in the centre of Westray Island, in the Orkney Islands, stands a 67m wind turbine that dominates the surrounding countryside.
It is exactly the kind of alternative energy project which would seem certain to attract bitter opposition in many of our rural communities.
But here there has been not a single planning objection to the turbine.
David Stephenson is a retired Englishman who has chosen a new life on this Scottish Island. He is a prime mover in the community trust which built the turbine.
“There were no objections,” he says. “That’s not because everybody on Westray likes wind turbines. We know that some don’t but they think that if there is an opportunity for a turbine on Westray, then let it be owned by the community with all the benefits from it being invested back into the community.”
And that’s exactly what is happening. It was the community itself which raised the £1.5m to pay for the turbine, through a combination of bank loans and grants.

That means that, perhaps uniquely, the project is wholly owned by the community and will eventually raise a projected £200,000 a year in annual income.
For the ladies of Westray’s knitting circle it is this common-ownership-for-the-common-good approach which helps make the turbine acceptable. As they chat over tea in the Half Yok café they seem well acquainted with the business plan.
Kathy Maben sums it up: “We all had a chance to say what we thought and we all had a chance to put forward our views. It really is a good thing. The money that will come from it in the long run… will do so much to help Westray.”
Not everyone here loves the look of the turbine. In the sunlight it stands even more prominent as the light reflects off the rotating blades. But Dorris, a long time Westray resident with a beautiful Orcadian accent, laughs as she describes how she uses it as an instant update on the weather.
“It’s quite fine. I look out the door every day and see it barrelling away. If it goes round fast you know it’s a bad day and if goes round slowly you know it is a better day.”
Theological gains
So could the Westray model be used to help make alternative energy schemes more accepted in rural communities across the country?
The instinct to protect the landscape is often the driving factor for the more than a hundred campaign groups in Britain which are dedicated to stopping the renewables scheme in their areas.
In Westray that opposition seems to have been removed. That’s largely because of the cash benefit to the community but also because of the scale of the development; one wind turbine rather than a big wind farm.
At the Island Church, or Kirk, Reverend Iain MacDonald believes Westray’s example could be a way forward for other communities: indeed other islands have are already investigating their own “community energy projects.”
As he stands in the Kirk, which has its own small wind turbine and ground source heat pump, it is clear that he believes alternative energy is the right thing to do: an act of faith.
“It’s an environmental thing, clearly. It has an ethical angle. From a Christian point of view it’s got the angle of theological stewardship. But it’s also a very cost effective thing. Stewardship is not just about the theological side, it’s also about the very practical side… And we gain on both,” he says.
The Westray project is in its first year on line and as the blades go around, the control room at the base of the turbine keeps track of the amount of energy which is being fed from here into the national grid.
It will take some time to calculate just how much cash will be raised. But the community here takes satisfaction in the fact that whatever money there is, will come back to them, rather than profit a big energy company.

Development Trusts Association – Community Shares Programme

The Community Shares Programme is a two-year action-research project funded by the Office of the Third Sector and the Department for Communities and Local Government working in partnership with the Development Trusts Association and Co-operativesUK. The purpose of this programme is to investigate how members of the public can invest in enterprises serving a community purpose.

Launched in January 2009, the Programme has contributed to the rapid growth of interest and activity in community investment.

In the first half of the last decade there were, on average, four new community  share schemes each year. But in the second half of the decade, the number of community share schemes started to increase, culminating in a sevenfold increase in 2009, when 28 enterprises launched community share offers. In addition to this, at least another 50 community groups are known to be exploring the option of community investment. From farming, football and pubs, to community retail stores and renewable energy, community investment is proving to be an excellent way of financing enterprises that serve a community purpose.

This enthusiasm for community investment brings with it new responsibilities. Most members of the public have little or no direct experience of buying shares, or what to expect from an investment offer. Educating the public about their rights as investors and the risks associated with equity investment is paramount. Potential investors need to know what risks they are taking, how they can get their money back, and what social and financial returns they can reasonably expect. They need to know their rights as shareholders, and how their involvement in an enterprise can improve its fortunes. It is reasonable for the public to expect protection from unscrupulous promoters, or even over-enthusiastic but poorly informed community activists. Investing is not the same as giving, regardless of how good the cause or well-intentioned the promoters. At the same time, heavy-handed regulation could be an unnecessary burden on community-owned enterprises.

The aim of the Community Shares Programme is to learn from the practical experiences of ten community organisations that are planning to make a community share offer. This evidence will be used by government to shape its community regeneration policies, and provide more effective guidance, regulation and support for community investment.

The Community Shares Programme defines community investment as:

“The sale, or offer for sale, of more than £10,000 of shares or bonds to communities of at least twenty people, to finance ventures serving a community purpose.”

For a full copy of the report see http://www.dta.org.uk/Resources/Development%20Trust%20Association/Documents/National%20Events/Cshares_One%20year%20on_FINAL%20260310.pdf

The community on the Island of Muck were delighted to hear just before Christmas that the BIG Lottery (Growing Community Assets scheme) had awarded The Isle of Muck Community Enterprise Ltd £338,042 for the proposed new Community Hall.

This exciting news followed on from a successful application for £278,080 from the Scottish Rural Development Fund (SRDP) – Rural Priorities which was announced in September 2009.

These awards are a tremendous boost for the community and mean that the funding is almost all in place for the project. It can now progress to building warrant stage and then a tendering process will be undertaken for a building contractor and it is hoped that the hall will be built and in use for Summer 2011.

Currently there is no central building for community events on Muck. They usually take place in the school room or in a barn at the farm, both of which have to be cleared out first and are not always available. To have a purpose built building with facilities for sporting, social, cultural and educational activities will make a huge difference and help to sustain a fragile rural community.

The community of 38 started fund-raising to build their first Community Hall on the island in May 2007, and to date has raised over £ I 0,000 themselves through fund-raising events, activities and donations. The recent fund-raising ceilidh in Edinburgh was a resounding success, with an impressive £2,600 being raised from the evening. Everyone enjoyed  a wonderful evening of dancing with the Occasionals ceilidh band and home made and local island produce being served for the ceilidh supper.

A photographic competition was held last year and the winning entries used to create an ‘Isle of Muck’ 20 I 0 calendar and other merchandise. Fundraising activities will continue as the project progresses. The community is very grateful for all the support and help it has received from so many people and businesses which has enabled it to get to this point.

Catherine Murray John 
 

Author: Erik Geddes , Local News Glasgow

Plug pulled on funding for Castlemilk Stress centre.

The harsh realities of council cutbacks are hitting one of Glasgow’s poorest areas particularly hard.

Glasgow South East Community Health Care Partnership (CHCP) – which is part-funded by the council – is set to pull the plug on funding for Castlemilk Stress Centre.

The centre, based in Stravanan Road for the past four years, relied on £80,000 core funding from the CHCP along with a further £40,000 from community planning.

The 14 staff and volunteers offer complimentary therapies such as aromatherapy massage and reflexology to more than 100 people a week for free or at vastly reduced prices.

Karen Guthrie, assistant manager of the centre, told of the impact that the proposed closure at the end of March will have.

She said: ‘The people who come here will be devastated if this service is withdrawn.

‘A lot of the clients are very vulnerable; many are long-term unemployed and many more are suffering from other conditions including mental health issues.

‘Our staff has taken this very hard as they are now facing unemployment and threat of not meeting mortgage payments and rent.

‘We understand that there has to be cuts in frontline services but we’re doing everything we can for people to contact their MPs and councillors to reverse this decision.

‘There is petition circulating and we’re doing all we can. We’re not giving up; it would seem that the money is simply not there, we need a miracle.’

In addition, there is a dedicated youth centre that visits all the schools and nurseries dealing with anger management, emotional intelligence and works very closely with young people through periods of transition.

While the youth stress centre is funded via The Big Lottery until the end of 2011, it will now be without a permanent home when the Stress Centre closes.

Karen said: ‘The knock-on effect will be that it will be likely to close unless new accommodation is made available to them.’

Amanda Brown, local resident and board member of Castlemilk Youth Complex, has both worked alongside and used the services of the stress centre.

She suffered whiplash after being in a car crash in 2005 and was able to access the youth stress centre, which was offering free therapy sessions.

She cited the same reasons of deprivation and care needs as Karen Guthrie as those which made the centre so important to the area.

She added: ‘It may even cost the CHCP more in the long term as people’s health needs will increase and their ability to work will reduce if they pull this service.’

Amanda continued: ‘It’s been great to have the stress centre; it helps build a sense of community.

‘One time I was there I forgot my purse but the staff were great with me, dropping in the cash later in the week.

‘I can’t believe that they have just pulled it.’

MP for Glasgow South, Tom Harris, has written to CHCP and Baillie James Scanlon expressing concern over the closure.

RADICAL plans by an SNP-led council to transfer clusters of schools into arm’s-length trusts were last night given broad backing by the education minister.

Michael Russell said the scheme, by East Lothian Council, might fit in “perfectly” with the Scottish Government’s plans.

His remarks came as it emerged the local authority has set out a timetable for implementing the controversial scheme.

In a briefing paper sent to headteachers and parent councils, director of education Don Ledingham said the aim was to prepare a report by December which includes “an implementation strategy” towards a return to the “parish school” system.

He believes centralised bureaucracy leads to “a lack of innovation or diversity between schools”. The document lists 60 questions that need to be addressed about how the plan would work – and although it lists eight possible benefits, it also highlights possible weaknesses.

It warns that “communities might seek to recruit pupils from other areas” –a key criticism of trusts in England, where struggling schools have had brighter pupils “poached” by better performers.

Other potential problems include school clusters trying to move “expensive” students out of their area and “small interest groups trying to take control of a board”. And although it was originally put forward as a possible money saver, the document admits: “There may be no budget savings from such a scheme.”

Mr Russell last night said he was open to discussions and suggestions on how to improve Scottish education, but warned it was too early to say how the East Lothian scheme would take shape. His stance is in sharp contrast to that of his predecessor Fiona Hyslop, who was reluctant to embrace the proposals.

Mr Russell said: “I believe that the East Lothian plan envisages ‘trust’ arrangements for schools and not for ‘trust schools’ as they exist elsewhere in the UK.

“It therefore seems that what is being talked about is exploring a radical extension of arrangements that many Scottish councils already operate for devolving management to headteachers and individual or clusters of schools.”

He said the government supported councils giving greater flexibility and control to schools.

And he added: “So East Lothian’s plans may well fit in perfectly with the government’s aims.”

In November, the then education secretary, Ms Hyslop, branded the English trust school model as seriously flawed.

While she hinted at having support for more “community empowerment” in schools, she stopped short of providing backing for the scheme.

Mr Ledingham, seen as one of Scotland’s leading education thinkers, believes a wider debate is needed on how schools are organised.

A conference is planned in April to discuss the proposal with headteachers, parent councils, East Lothian councillors and other interested parties.

Mr Ledingham has said the move signifies a return to the “parish school” system.

In the report, he wrote: “Parish schools succeeded because they were so closely associated with their communities and accountability for success lay at the school’s doorstep – as opposed to being ‘handed over’ to a faceless bureaucratic system.”

Under the East Lothian plan, management boards would be set up for each cluster, including “young people, education representatives, parent representatives, councillors, community representatives and local businesses”.

Des McNulty, Labour’s education spokesman, said: “If East Lothian is flying a kite, then Russell seems to want to give it a fair wind.

“The government should be very cautious about being seen to promote arrangements for change when obvious problems exist in neighbouring Edinburgh, which need addressing far more urgently.”

The general secretary of the Scottish Secondary Teachers’ Association, Ann Ballinger, urged caution, saying it might not work universally across Scotland. She said: “In some areas, such as middle-class areas, school boards have been hugely successful, in that lots of people compete to get on them.

“In other areas, they can’t get anyone to sit on the board.”

Conservative schools spokeswoman Liz Smith said she supported greater devolution of power to headteachers.

“It shows it is time to have a very radical think about how we improve our schools,” she said.

What changes could pupils, teachers and parents expect?

EAST Lothian is looking at the trust proposal because it thinks the way schools are run now – with large staffs in a centralised council management team – will be too expensive as council budgets come under pressure.

Charitable trusts do not have to pay rates, can receive tax-free donations and access funding not available to councils.

Other benefits include schools “belonging” more to their community, greater flexibility to spend on local priorities – and potential improvements in pupil attainment.

Management boards would be set up for each cluster, including “young people, education representatives, parent representatives, councillors, community representatives with specialist expertise (eg finance) and representatives from health, community learning, social work and local businesses”.

Critics are unhappy about involving businesses in running schools, but the council says it would retain key responsibilities, from managing school-building programmes to looking after vulnerable children.

It would also devolve budgets, set targets, examine school performance and support trusts not achieving the required standard.

It is understood all East Lothian secondaries could be affected by the plans: Dunbar Grammar, Knox Academy, Musselburgh Grammar, North Berwick High, Preston Lodge High and Ross High.

Call for Views on the Housing (Scotland) Bill
Submission to the Local Government and Communities
Committee of the Scottish Parliament
Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations
March 2010

1. About this Paper

1.1 GWSF represents community‐based housing associations (CBHAs), with members in
Glasgow, Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire, Inverclyde and West Dunbartonshire.
1.2 This paper is our response to the Committee’s call for views on the Housing
(Scotland) Bill. Our partners EVH (the leading support body for housing association
employers) and SHARE (the sector’s leading provider of learning and development) have
also endorsed this response on behalf of their respective memberships.
1.3 CBHAs have been transforming housing and the physical environment in many of
Scotland’s most disadvantaged communities for the last 30 years:
We are community‐owned organisations, led by local people;
We aim to provide good housing in strong communities;
Our services are responsive to local needs and our housing investment has proved to be
sustainable.

2. The Housing (Scotland) Bill: GWSF’s Top 5 Issues
2.1 This submission addresses five aspects of the Bill, focusing mainly on the proposals
relating to housing regulation. The Bill’s significance is far wider than ensuring a good deal
for tenants, which everyone would support. Wider policy agendas will determine how the
new Scottish Housing Regulator applies the powers it would have under the Bill, which
could have major implications for CBHAs and our local communities.
2.2 There is a view in some quarters that Scotland has “too many housing associations”
and that mergers and restructuring of CBHAs would produce greater efficiency. Stretching
scarce resources in the current climate is clearly vital. But we do not accept that CBHAs are
less efficient than large landlords, and we are concerned that the Bill could be used to
fundamentally re‐structure the Scottish housing association sector. This is on the agenda of
some policy‐makers, but is not a priority for tenants or local communities.

3. Issue 1: The Scottish Social Housing Charter
3.1 GWSF will contribute actively to future consultation about the Charter. Based on
present information, we have the following comments:
a) Section 32 of the Bill gives examples of the outcomes the Charter might describe.
These relate to “bricks and mortar” and traditional housing services issues.
Many CBHAs are increasingly involved in wider regeneration activities. The Charter
should be much more explicit about the role that housing providers can play in making
neighbourhoods safe, popular and sustainable places. And in providing support to help
vulnerable people live within their local communities. The new system of regulation
should be explicit in reporting the social and economic value of these wider activities.
b) The Bill proposes that landlords should deliver both national and local outcomes for
tenants.
National outcomes could help promote higher standards for tenants. But they also need
to be consistent with our strong Scottish traditions of localism. We want to be clear
whether the Charter will represent the full extent of Government’s expectations of
CBHAs – or whether there will be additional requirements on other policy subjects.
Local housing associations do not want to be simply delivery agents for government
policy. The Bill is an ideal opportunity for the Government to review its relationships
with us, as it has already done with local authorities and the third sector.
c) Rather than simplifying regulation, the Bill will create more complexity.
Current regulatory standards are set out in one document (“Performance Standards”).
But the Bill and Policy Memorandum describe multiple layers of standards and guidance.
This will not deliver the simplification recommended by the Crerar Review.1 The added
complexity is a key issue for both tenants and smaller landlords ‐ less than half of
Scotland’s housing associations employ 20 or more office‐based staff. Overall, the
Charter and the new system of regulation need to reflect the housing associations we
have, not those that some national policy‐makers would like to create.
d) Parliament would set standards for housing through the Charter, with the Scottish
Housing Regulator assessing landlords’ performance. Whereas for housing association
governance and finances, the SHR would set standards and assess performance.
This dual approach is not logical. CBHAs also have strong concerns about views
expressed by the present SHR on housing association governance and mergers.2
Ministers should lead in making policy in these areas, with accountability to Parliament.

4. Issue 2: The Role and Functions of the New Scottish Housing Regulator
4.1 The new SHR would have the objective of safeguarding and promoting the
interests of current and future tenants and of homeless people.
We fully support this objective. Protecting individuals’ interests is important if landlords are
not getting basic housing services right. But many tenants get a good housing service from
their landlord, and are more concerned about wider problems in their neighbourhoods.
Tenants often look to their local housing association to address these concerns. This will
increase in future, if local authorities have to curtail neighbourhood services. So it is vital to
sustain recent growth in wider community services provided by housing associations.
The Bill can help, by recognising that social housing is about neighbourhoods and
communities, as well as individuals. The housing regulator in England has a statutory duty
to encourage housing providers to address the environmental, social and economic well
being of their areas. We would like the new SHR to have a similar duty, and for the new
system of regulation to reflect the work many CBHAs do in addressing these wider needs.
We would also like the new SHR to have a duty to promote and assist community‐owned
housing associations. This would be a practical demonstration of the Government’s
existing policy on community empowerment. It would also give regulation an additional,
more positive purpose, by requiring the new SHR to work in partnership with tenants and
community landlords to raise standards. Such a duty would not diminish the SHR’s ability to
address cases where individual landlords are failing to meet standards.
4.2 The new SHR would have a duty to act proportionately, transparently and
accountably. These are good principles, but their application is the critical test.
More thinking and further checks and balances are essential, if the SHR’s duty to act
proportionately, transparently and accountably is to be more than just a broad aspiration.
It is not clear how the new SHR would be accountable to Parliament, even though it would
have very wide‐ranging powers and would be independent from Ministers. There need to
be clear boundaries for the new SHR’s role in policy‐making for the housing association
sector, to limit the kind of policy kite‐flying seen in the SHR’s “Shaping Up for Improvement”
report (for example, on mergers, restructuring and competition). Section 5 of the Bill will “filter” the SHR’s role in scrutinising local authority landlords. Is it right that housing associations should experience more intensive regulation?
The SHR has a legitimate role in regulating housing associations’ governance and finances.
But we would like to see the proposals for RSLs compared with the scrutiny and
intervention powers for these areas that apply in other sectors, (e.g. local authorities; the
charitable and third sectors; and PPP projects). Are housing associations a “special case”?
Or should there be some consistency across different sectors, as Crerar recommended?
The Bill is a broad framework, not a blueprint of future processes. The SHR would have
substantial freedom to decide regulatory processes as well as interventions in particular
cases. While it would have a duty to consult on guidance, there will always be varied
opinions among stakeholders, meaning that the SHR’s views are likely to be decisive in
practice. Instead of this, we would like to see a more balanced approach, with tenants and
social landlords as well as the Regulator being equal partners.

5. Issue 3: Conditions attached to being a Registered Social Landlord (RSL)
5.1 The Bill would repeal existing provisions about the permitted activities of RSLs and
how they are constituted. Instead, these matters would be described in orders laid before
Parliament by Ministers. These are fundamental issues, but no information has been given
about what kind of changes the Government may have in mind or its underlying policy aims.
The Policy Memorandum says that registration as a social landlord in Scotland would be
opened up to providers from other EU member states. The likeliest outcome is that very
large UK‐wide RSLs will seek registration in Scotland, particularly if they see opportunities to
mop up local housing associations through mergers and restructuring. This would replicate
developments in England, where RSL group structures owning tens of thousands of houses
across unrelated areas are now commonplace. It would be completely at odds with
Scotland’s very different tradition of smaller, community‐owned landlords. Do Scottish
tenants really want landlords controlled by large organisations with head offices hundreds
of miles away? And are these the best partners for Scottish local authorities?
5.2 The Committee may wish to make comparisons with the position in Wales. Recent
legislation restricts registration as a social landlord in Wales to Welsh bodies with their
registered office in Wales and which are “principally concerned with Welsh housing”. We
would like to know why similar provisions could not apply in Scotland.

6. Issue 4: Amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006
6.1 This aspect of the Bill affects a number of CBHAs working in neighbourhoods with
significant levels of poor quality private housing and/or private landlords who do not meet
their legal obligations. In Glasgow, for example, these issues are particularly prevalent in a
number of communities in the south side of the city.
6.2 We support the case made by Glasgow City Council in 2009 to strengthen the
existing legislation. But key aspects of the City Council’s submissions are not reflected in
the Bill.1 Financial pressures also mean that the City Council does not have the staffing
levels needed to manage private landlord enforcement or disrepair issues as it would wish.
6.3 The 2006 Act has been ineffective in areas where there are concentrations of poor
housing owned by private landlords. For example, Govanhill Housing Association’s current
petition to the Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee describes truly appalling slum
conditions that are intensified by poor private landlord practice and acute social problems.
6.4 The solutions to these problems lie in adequate resources for implementing the
housing renewal area powers in the 2006 Act (which have been largely unused), and in
strengthening the statutory framework for applying the powers. For example, by allowing
sub‐standard properties in these areas to be purchased by housing associations for future
improvement, at market value less future improvement costs. This would enable the
comprehensive physical and social regeneration that is so urgently needed.

7. Issue 5: Right to Buy (RTB) Reforms
7.1 Most GWSF members indicated last year that they supported the proposed RTB
reforms, including the new proposal to restrict the RTB for all new tenancies. Equally, the
RTB has given local people in some areas more choice and greater access to home
ownership. So we would like to see other measures brought forward specifically to help
promote more mixed communities in areas where there is limited choice. These measures
could be promoted through the Affordable Housing Investment Programme (AHIP) and are
not dependent on new legislation.

8. Conclusions
8.1 GWSF hopes that all of the political parties will help us defend and promote the
unique role that CBHAs play in providing good housing within strong, empowered
communities throughout Scotland. We have restricted this submission to the broad
matters covered by the Bill, rather than the detail. We would be pleased to provide the
Committee with further evidence or information, as its scrutiny of the Bill proceeds.
Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations
2 March 2010

John Swinney
Minister for Finance and Sustainable Growth
Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh
EH99 1SP

11/3/10

Dear Mr Swinney

Scotland’s share – Dormant Bank Accounts

The Scottish Government has demonstrated a clear strategic commitment to there being a vibrant and diverse third sector in Scotland and indeed is making significant levels of investment in the sector through the Enterprising Third Sector Action Plan. Many local and national organisations have already benefited from this support and will undoubtedly become more financially sustainable as a result.

We all recognise that the constraints on public expenditure are going to become increasingly difficult to withstand over the next five to ten years and consequently we believe there is an urgent need for some fresh thinking to be applied to the challenge of how our sector is supported and developed in the future. Specifically, and this is wholly consistent with the principles underpinning the Enterprising Third Sector Action Plan, we see the need to transform the dependency relationship that our sector has with grant support and in particular,  grant support from government.

We expect Scotland’s share of the funds that are generated by the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act to be somewhere in the region of £40m.  The Act provides Scottish Ministers with the discretion to instruct BIG as to what the priorities should be for the distribution of these funds.   On the basis of past experience, it is reasonable to assume that BIG will seek to allocate these funds in the form of grant support across a range of worthy causes.  However, we believe this windfall comes at a time when there is a pressing need for a more imaginative and radical alternative.

We propose that a significant proportion of this windfall – as much as 50% – should be used to create an endowment for the future development and support of Scotland’s third sector.  Furthermore we would like propose that the endowment should take the form of an equity investment in the future of Scotland’s renewable energy capacity. For example, there are currently a number of investment opportunities that have arisen in the development of off shore wind farms.

The long term income stream that such an investment would generate, would provide a significant part of the third sector’s supporting infrastructure with a degree of stability that has never before existed. We estimate that such an endowment would generate a minimum of £50m in income over a twenty year period. Furthermore, if such an endowment were to be owned and managed by a Trust which was independent of government, it would not only ease the burden on the public purse but fundamentally correct some of the imbalances in the current relationship between the third sector and the state.

Local People Leading is a broad coalition of community sector networks working across Scotland. We urge you to give the broad principles underpinning this proposal your active consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Local People Leading – the voice for strong and independent communities