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

The future for local authorities: is it John Lewis or easyCouncil?

For the last few years Steve Reed, leader of Lambeth council, has surveyed a dismal financial landscape in which he is supposed to keep on providing the same services with 20% less funding. Increasingly he has eyed the disparate network of community groups working wonders with nothing but free time.

He rated the network so highly that he even pushed to give it a lot of that diminishing pot of community money lying in the council’s vaults.

After a four-year process, the £6m Lilian Baylis old school will soon be owned by a local community trust. The council has also set up what it believes to be the first community land trust in an urban area, and hopes a patch of land beside a railway will be turned into a shared-equity housing estate.

Reed believes getting users involved in providing services will save money eventually.

Mimicking the most famous example of this, he is trying to create what he is proud to call the first “John Lewis” council, bringing himself into direct conflict with Conservative councillor Mike Freer in the more affluent north London suburb of Barnet, where they are pioneering the art of the two-tier service.

“I thought when I read about the easyCouncil, ‘that’s the polar opposite of what we’re doing in Lambeth’,” Reed said. “We won’t be planning to offer two-tier services, where people in effect pay twice for services that are substandard for everyone – and if you’re wealthy enough to pay for it then you buy better services.

“What we’re facing is an overall reduction in funding coming in from central government of about 20%. You have four options – you can either strip back all services, you can ration them by means-testing, you can charge for them, which is what Barnet is doing, or you can deal with it in a different way, which is what we’re doing: try to involve the users in providing it at lower costs.”

Last year Reed took the unusual step of hiring a local resident, Sue Sheehan, who with friends had created a green co-operative growing vegetables in Balham. Reed gave her a job developing the same idea across the borough. Aware that her expertise might have more limited application in some of the tougher areas of Lambeth, he asked her to set up just six such co-ops in her first year in the job. Within that year Sheehan had created 50.

Under Reed’s plan, his “John Lewis” council would see a community manage a £6m asset such as Lilian Baylis as well as growing local vegetables. The same could be true of community centres, housing associations, primary schools, or whatever they want, said Reed. “With services like Sure Start, the people in the local area would be given the right to ballot to turn it into a mutual – and then it’s over to them.”

Research is said to show productivity within workers’ co-ops rising by 5%. Reed also wants to mutualise the management of personalised budgets – another public service reform shown to save money, he says – and then hand over some of the council’s more simple tasks to the voters to sort out for themselves.

“If a group of neighbours identify a grot spot or a piece of derelict land, instead of the council coming around and cleaning it up we help them to help themselves.

“Last weekend we sent a skip and shovels and some Community Payback kids – young offenders – and they made a neighbourhood garden. The marginal costs for the council of this project were £300. If we had done that ourselves it would have cost a lot more.”

There will also be the prospect for voters of seeing some of those savings further down the line, when the ethos of the John Lewis council could become an actual John Lewis council, since staff at that firm receive financial rewards.

“With a co-operative firm you get a dividend. Why not get one with council services too: we would call it the ‘active community dividend’. I’m sure there will be legal issues but we are very much in favour of this,” said Reed.

Some of this will sound familiar. The Tories announced on Monday that a Conservative government will allow public sector workers to form co-operatives. But the difference between the two models, as Labour sees it, is that Labour wants users involved alongside workers.

The government may have arrived at a similar conclusion as Reed and be planning to put similar ideas in its general election manifesto.

If his consultation goes according to plan, Reed may find himself able to implement some of his plans, assuming he is re-elected on 6 May.

The Labour government’s own post-May chances of introducing the ideas across the country are in greater doubt.

Author: Mike Merritt , The Scotsman

THE first house to go up for sale on the remote Isle of Rum has been sold as a step towards increasing the local population.

In a landmark move, islanders are also due to take ownership of a dozen houses and other properties by the end of next month – after what was Scotland’s smallest community buyout.

Dilapidated Tattie House was put on the market last year at offers over £40,000 and its sale was crucial to the future of an island with just 39 people, nearly all of whom work for the isle’s main owner, Scottish Natural Heritage.

It has been bought by Ian and Kate Bolas from Wales, who plan to renovate it and move in “in about two to three years”.

“The sale of Tattie House is a significant start. We do not envisage any more property being sold in the foreseeable future – but a number of building plots could be,” said trust director Sean Morris.

“The trust will take over and rent the existing homes. People will be independent of SNH and have security of staying in their own homes for the first time.

“There has already been a number of people who have expressed an interest in the building plots. We are trying to build a sustainable future here.”

Until recently, everything on the Hebridean island, known, along with Canna, Muck and Eigg, as one of the Small Isles, was the property of SNH.

The island, one of Scotland’s nature reserves, is home to the sea eagle, red deer and otters, among other wildlife.

But last year, ownership of the village, including the Tattie House, and some land on the island, which will be rented out as crofts, was transferred to the Isle of Rum Community Trust.

The trust is trying to establish a community on Rum, where, until recently, the only way to live there was to work for SNH.

A second-phase transfer of land and assets next month will see the community taking ownership of almost the entire village and infrastructure.

The money raised from selling Tattie House will go towards a new shop and café, providing a focal point for village life.

Tattie House was originally two cottages occupied by farmhands, but has lain abandoned for decades. Situated on the north side of Kinloch Village, it enjoys views overlooking Loch Scresort.

Residents voted in January last year in favour of taking community ownership of buildings and land on the island. The ballot of the 17 adult islanders passed the asset transfer by 15 votes to two.

The move was part of the Scottish Government’s plan to transfer £257,000 worth of assets to the community from SNH.

www.ecba.org.uk

Edinburgh Community Backgreens Association is a community enterprise created to inspire and support folk to develop tenement backgreens into community greenspaces, which build a sense of neighbourhood and improve the environmental sustainability of the households that live around them.

Just over half of Edinburgh households live in tenements.   Tenement backgreens range widely, some are urban oases, many others are just a square of grass with some drying poles, and the worst are inaccessible jungles. 

ECBA believe that backgreens can offer much more. They can be diverse beautiful greenspaces which provide a place for relaxation and recreation, places for growing food and meeting neighbours.  By linking neighbouring backgreens, we can create ‘community backgreens’, which share common facilities like tool sheds or play facilities for children. 

ECBA was set up to support residents to create community backgreens.  Their website gives lots of information as to how to set up a community backgreen, and about the services they provide to tenement households to enrich and maintain their backgreens.

ECBA are particularly interested in sites where larger greenspaces are formed when several streets of tenements enclose a group of backgreens.  They seeks to work with residents to use their backgreens as a resource to build a sense of neighbourhood, and to improve the facilities and amenities available to households around the site

Their  first goal at a new site is the creation of a ‘community backgreen’ in the centre of the site.  The community backgreen is the focus of community activities and services, it is where they install the community shed and other facilities. 

Wherever possible, the community backgreen will be located in a small area in the centre of the site, which all residents can gain access to.

The community backgreen provides a central location for shared activities and community facilities which might be useful to all of the households such as, a jungle gym play area for young children, a community composting facility, bike sheds or whatever the residents decide. 

Co-Shed
Once they have created a community backgreen, ECBA will install a timber shed for storing tools and equipment.  As this shed is to be shared by all the residents involved in the project, they call it the community shed or ‘co-shed’ for short.

Grow your own

Grow Your Own’ is the name of their project to support tenement dwellers who want to grow fruit and vegetables in backgreens or in allotments.  Because the waiting list for allotments in Edinburgh is so long, (2,000 households waiting 2-7 years), ECBA are looking at ways that they can support residents to start growing whilst they wait for an allotment.  There are several ways in which they can help:-
• They teach a Grow Your Own course,
• They are seeking to establish several Community Allotment sites across the city,
• They are supporting households to install Raised Beds in their own backgreens.
• They are promoting the ‘Forest Garden’ model to establish an urban orchard.

Author: Stephen Maxwell

Proposal by Stephen Maxwell – 10 big ideas for action

Among the core elements of a shared transformational response by Scottish civil society to the multilayered economic, environmental, social and political crisis now facing the world should be:
 
– the replacement of GDP as the official measure of prosperity  by an Index of Well- Being and Sustainability
 
– the entrenchment of measures of social added value in public reporting and auditing processes
 
– the adoption by Government of explicit targets for the reduction of poverty and of inequalities of income and wealth supported by a specified and timetabled programme of actions
 
– structural reform of the banks and other financial institutions to limit their capacity to destabilise the economy (for example the separation of retail and investment banking, the appointment of customer champions to Bank Boards,     stricter regulation of capital/lending ratios and of bankers’ bonuses)
 
– state help to develop alternative financial options, including mutuals, dedicated to using deposits to fund house building for social as well as private ownership, small business investment and personal credit,  a part public Development Bank for higher volume business investment, and a  public bond issuing trust for investment in the public infrastructure
 
– increased carbon taxes in support of the targets for CO2 reductions adopted in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act, supported by a switch of  infrastructure   investment from road to rail, increased investment in renewable energy, carbon capture and energy conservation including mass insulation and community heat and power schemes.
 
– a redefinition of civil liberties in a Bill of Rights as part of a consolidated Written Constitution based on popular sovereignty and extending the rights of citizens as voters, users of public services, and members of local communities (for example by  providing for citizens’ initiative referenda, enforceable rights for service users, increased autonomy for local authorities, direct empowerment for local communities)
 
–  abolition of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent

–  electoral reform  to increase the  ‘representativeness’ of governments and the accountability of policy making
 
–  an international development  agenda focused on the most urgent social and environmental needs of the least developed countries  within a global trading and financial system which recognises those countries’ rights to decide for themselves such macro issues as the role of financial markets  and the  balance of public and private provision of public services, and the promotion of human rights.

Author: Laura Bunt and Michael Harris, NESTA

Policymakers increasingly recognise that many of the solutions to major social challenges – from tacklingclimate change to improving public health – need to be much more local. Local solutions are frequently very effective, as they reflect the needs of specific communities and engage citizens in taking action. And they are often cost-effective, since they provide a conduit for the resources of citizens, charities or social enterprises to complement those of the state. Given the growing pressure on government finances, these are important benefits.

But localism presents a dilemma. Government has traditionally found it difficult to support genuine local solutions while achieving national impact and scale. This report offers a solution: an approach by which central and local government can encourage widespread, high quality local responses to big challenges. The approach draws on the lessons of NESTA’s Big Green Challenge – a successful programme to support communities to reduce carbon emissions. This approach might be applied across other challenge areas,from public health to reducing re-offending, and has some important implications for how government can support communities to take action at a lower cost than traditional initiatives. We call this approach ‘mass localism’.

Read full report here http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/MassLocalism_Feb2010.pdf

LAND REFORM
RIGHTS TO BUY – WHERE TO FROM HERE?
HIGHLAND COUNCIL HQ
TUESDAY, 23rd MARCH 2010

09.00:  Registration and coffee

09.30:  Welcome and introduction
            (Cllr Michael Foxley – chair of morning session)

09.45:  Key note address – Government perspective on RtB
            (Minister for Environment)

10.15:  Land Reform and the role of RtB
            (Dr J Hunter)

10.45: Achievements in Community Land Ownership in the Highlands and Islands
            (Neil Gerrard)

11.15: Break

11.30: Experience of RtB – (Community perspectives and experience of RtB, legislation and process)
• John Randall – Pairc Community Trust
• David Cameron – North Harris Trust
• John Hutchison – Isle of Eigg Trust
• Huw Francis – Storas Uibhist

12.45: Improving the legislation?
          (Simon Fraser)

13.15: Lunch (to include poster displays and networking opportunity)

14.15: Tackling the issues – Introduction to workshop session (Donald Macleod)

      (Refreshments available throughout workshops)
 
• Workshop 1: “Raising awareness of RtB and helping communities achieve their goals” – to include discussion of funding and GCA
• Workshop 2: “Improving the legislation – simpler and more relevant”
• Workshop 3: “Pump priming – the role of public land”

15.30: Feedback session and panel discussion – each workshop to provide
           4 or 5 important actions for moving forward
           (Facilitator – Donald Macleod)

16.15: Summary of recommendations and identifying joint actions points
           (Facilitator – Donald Macleod)

16.30: Thanks and close of conference
           (Cllr Michael Foxley)

For booking a place, contact Rowan Tree Consulting, 24 Ballifeary Lane, Inverness, IV3 5PH, fax 01463 715225,
 e-mail: hazel@rowan-tree-consulting.co.uk.

Jon Hollingdale blog –  http://www.communitywoods.org

Do you ever wonder why it’s so difficult to get money for community woodland projects to deliver exactly the sort of public benefits the Government says it wants? or ponder why land is so expensive in Scotland, way beyond any value that could be justified by agricultural (or forestry) production?

Well at least part of the reason for both is the vast amount of money that the government throws blindly at agriculture, including £560m annually in Single Farm Payment alone, which, since it was “decoupled” from production to sidestep World Trade Organisation Rules, does not require the “farmer” to do anything at all. Even spread over 5m hectares this is serious money, which ends up capitalised in inflated land values, and ensures there’s only crumbs left for genuine rural and community development projects.

Not surprisingly, there are calls for change. The Inquiry into Future Support for Agriculture in Scotland, chaired by Brian Pack, has just published an Interim Report*, which is a truly extraordinary piece of work; though sadly not for its new vision for Scottish agriculture, but for what it reveals about the mindset of the Government.

The report does at least suggest that future funding shold be conditional on active management, but pays little more than lip service to the views expressed in the “call for evidence” that public funds should be directed to the purchase of public benefit and delivering action on mitigating climate change. Instead, the direction of the argument is clear – it doesn’t matter if our agriculture is unproductive, an economic basket case and a greenhouse gas disaster, it’s the only agriculture we’ve got, and it’s Government’s job to come up with a new rationale for protecting business as usual. Unfortunately this is a role the current administration seems only too willing to embrace.

A series of public meetings** is just getting underway, and there is an opportunity for further public consultation*** – we’ll be submitting a robust response, and inviting all those with an interest in sustainable community development and mitigating climate change to do the same. If we want serious money to be spent on supporting these in future, then this is a key battleground, but we’ll have to wait and see whether there’s any inclination in Government to listen to reason when there’s a farming lobby to appease.

*The report can be downloaded from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/01/20141055/11
** Go to Public meetings: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/Agriculture/inquiry/public
*** Go to Further consultation: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/Agriculture/inquiry/interim/consultation/Q/editmode/on/forceupdate/on