At one end of the track a gate barricaded with chicken wire, tree branches and padlocks is adorned with skull-and-crossbone flags, while at the other a makeshift barrier sees wooden pallets fashioned to stop any vehicle in its tracks.

In between a man laden with blue rope is scaling a tree, while the thudding of hammering interrupts the soft sounds of a guitar and the smoke of a campfire wafts up through the trees.

Around 40 activists from across the UK gathered on Friday to help a South Lanarkshire community who have lost the fight against another open-cast pit in an area of Scotland already.

The Mainshill Solidarity Group say they will stay at the 340-acre beauty spot near the village of Douglas for as long as it takes for the project to be called off, either by the landowner, operator Scottish Coal or government ministers

The project in the Douglas Valley was approved by South Lanarkshire Council planners in February and by Scottish ministers in April – despite 650 letters of protest listing health issues, the amount of open-casting already going on close by, the site’s proximity to homes and the loss of the mostly wooded area which is a wildlife haven.

The proposals by Scottish Coal will create 100 new jobs and involve surface mining some 1.7m tonnes of coal and 160,000 tonnes of fireclay over a five-year period.

Environmental protestors say the plans contravened the Scottish Government planning policy document SPP16, which dictates that no community should suffer more than 10 years of continuous disruption due to this type of mining.

When guidelines were first drawn up, the then Scottish Executive said there should be a presumption against the digging of open-cast mines in areas blighted by old mines.

Scottish Coal, supported by the STUC, fought the policy then, saying it would jeopardise Scottish energy jobs and the future of home-produced coal.

One protester, Katie Smith, 25, from Glasgow, said: “We are building tree houses and structures which will mean we can’t be evicted. One of the main reasons we are here is to support the local community. We feel they are being bullied. We are also here for environmental reasons. A lot of the activists are climate change campaigners. We want coal to be left in the ground and not burned because we are concerned about our future and the future of our children.”

The land is owned by The Earl of Home, chairman of the Coutts bank and the son of former prime minister Sir Alec Douglas-Home.

From the entrance to the camp, it is possible to see two existing open-cast mines, Poniel and Broken Cross, across the valley.

Another, Glentaggart, is just down the road and the area also has two sand-and-gravel pits, a peat extraction site and three old coal bings.

Douglas residents have been delivering supplies of everything from water to chocolate cake to the group all weekend.

Surveyor Jim Douglas, 56, said: “I have done everything I can possibly do for them. We are surrounded by open-casts and it’s the health issues as well. This area has one of the highest cancer rates in the whole of Scotland.”

Tommy Cronin, 58, said: “It’s all about money. I grew up here and it’s always been forestry. They say they will restore it but how long will it take to be back to this?”

Locals have also dismissed the argument that another mine will create much-needed jobs, as they say staff will simply be moved there from other sites which will wind down.

But before planning permission was granted, Iain Urquhart, the council’s Executive Director for Enterprise Resources, said the economic benefits associated with the development “should be supported” through the planning system.Following an environmental assessment he concluded: “There will be no significant adverse effects.”

He added: “It is recognised that there is a strong local opinion in respect of the proposal and this is evident through the substantial number of objections received.

“While in no way dismissing these concerns it is considered this site can be developed without significantly adversely affecting communities or the environment.”

The protesters were expecting a visit from the police this morning and were told to expect eviction.

Protester Ross Jones, 23, from Edinburgh said: “We are not sure what is going to happen. I can’t see how any of the police in Scotland will be equipped to deal with it. They will have to bring up the special team from Wales.”

As well as being able to scale the trees, the group is armed with what they call lock-on tubes’ – concrete and glass-fibre creations which let protesters link arms inside a thick casing which cannot easily be broken.

The site has also become a local flashpoint in the Climate Change Bill debate.

Holyrood ministers will decide on Wednesday whether to back the bill, which would see Scotland lead the way in a pledge to protect the planet.

A new state-backed ‘people’s bank’ based in post office branches could be formed using the government-owned Northern Rock, a new report claims.

A coalition of groups including unions and businesses have released detailed proposals of plans it claims would protect the post office branch network from further closures and support local communities and smaller firms.

In its report, the Post Bank Coalition outlines four options the government could follow including using Northern Rock as a foundation to a mutually structured people’s bank, and buying out the Bank of Ireland’s stake in the Post Office.

Lindsay Mackie, campaign coordinator at the New Economics Foundation, said the government had overlooked the value of the Post Office as a vital national resource for too long.

‘Now it must act to establish a Post Bank to help to build strong, resilient local economies that can bind communities together, survive hard times and flourish in good ones,’ she said.

The coalition argues that a Post Bank would support government targets to combat financial exclusion, introduce much-needed diversity into the retail banking system and address the need for finance for small businesses, as well as providing crucial new business for post offices.

Billy Hayes, general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, which is part of the coalition, said: ‘We have met the challenge to create a workable model for the creation of a Post Bank. There’s never been a better time to set up a Post Bank.’

The coalition’s proposals were released ahead of the Berr select committee’s report on the future of post offices.

The Purpose of the Away Day

The Think Tanks Project is one of the cross-cutting strands of the SVA Programme portfolio of work. This project is designed to bring senior staff from across local and national third sector infrastructure to consider the key aim of the SVA programme which is:
“to develop a shared vision, purpose and direction for the voluntary sector support infrastructure in Scotland”.

The Think Tanks comprise two small groups from local and national infrastructure support agencies. These two groups have therefore been tasked with a far-reaching aim and remit. They are taking this forward through residential meetings where the participants are truly engaged in a process which encourages exploration out with the boundaries and constraints of the day job. To support this, the Think Tank participants hosted an Away Day with senior staff and board members from community, voluntary, social enterprise, intermediary and infrastructure organisations. The purposes of the Away Day were to:

* Share information and insights into the Think Tank project;
* Consider what a vision and purpose for local and national support for the third sector should look like; and
* Get ideas and insights into purpose and direction of infrastructure in Scotland.

Purpose and Vision Statement for Third Sector Support Services

The Think Tank participants have been discussing vision and purpose and have produced a draft vision and purpose statement to encapsulate the current and future vision and purpose of third sector support infrastructure. This was presented to the delegates at the start of the Away Day and insight and comment invited.

The draft statement is as follows:

Vision
An independent infrastructure which has the capacity, capability, and confidence to lead a strong and thriving voluntary, community, and social enterprise sector, in Scotland.

Purpose
To provide an enabling and supportive environment, where voluntary organisations, communities and social enterprises can flourish.

The discussions in the workshops elicited feedback on this and no major comments were received.

Download full report here http://www.svathinktanks.org.uk/ShapingFutureSummaryReport.pdf

The Scottish Government will introduce a new Housing Bill to Parliament in 2010. To get things started, the Government has published a first draft of the Bill and a consultation paper. The closing date for responses is 14 August 2009.

The draft Bill deals with two main things. First, ending the Right to Buy for new social housing. Second, major reforms to how social housing is regulated. The Government may put more into the Bill before it is presented to Parliament. For example, more radical changes to the Right to Buy, as well as new ways of dealing with poor quality private housing and with bad practice by private landlords.

Download full document here http://www.senscot.net/docs/EVHBriefing3.pdf

An update from CREATE consortium…….

Well, we finally have some news from the DWP about the Community Allowance.
 
We (Steve Wyler, Executive Director of the DTA, Aaron Barbour, Head of Links UK at Community Links and me) went to a hastily arranged meeting with 6 officials from the DWP this morning to discuss our Right to Bid proposal that we submitted back in January.
 
We’ve got through two rounds of intensive scrutiny and evaluation from across the Department and they wanted to give us their feedback.
 
Because the last Secretary of State, James Purnell, said that people on Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) would not be eligible for the Community Allowance, our bid, which includes a lot of detail about people on JSA is not eligible for funding and they are rejecting our proposal as it stands.
 
While we are obviously really disappointed that this is the decision after all the work that has gone into getting this far, there is still hope.
 
They have asked us to write another bid (!) as they are keen on the Community Allowance concept and can see the value in piloting it to test the approach. They have given us some guidance as to how we should re-shape the bid to stand the best chance of being approved. This includes:
 
• Re-shaping what we would deliver through the Community Allowance only for people who are on Employment and Support Allowance and Incapacity Benefit
• Scaling back the pilot programme from 15 pilots across the UK to just 3 pilots as the Right to Bid process is targeted at funding small scale activity that can act as the DWP’s research and development arm to test out new ideas and add value to their existing work
• Choosing which three pilot areas it would be piloted in and having identified lead community organisations in each area before the bid is submitted
• Ensuring that each of these pilot areas fits within Job Centre Plus and Pathways to Work provider boundaries, which are different to local authority boundaries
• Beginning to develop a dialogue between the community organisation(s) running the pilot and local Job Centre Plus and Pathways/FND providers in each area
• Including more of a focus on how many people will move into jobs as a result of the activity, specifying which of these are part time, full time and sustained over a 26 week period
 
We have had lots of discussions about this today and we think it is worth being pragmatic at this stage and moving ahead with another bid as outlined above. At the same time we will continue our lobbying and campaigning work to convince politicians that the Community Allowance should be available to anyone on any benefit and try to get the scope of the pilots extended to include those on JSA at a later date. What do you think?
 
We would like to hear if community organisations are still interested in being pilot partners under this scaled back version of a Community Allowance pilot. If you are, or you’d like to discuss the practicalities of becoming a pilot partner please email me (and copy in Jess Steele the Chair of the CREATE Consortium j.steele@dta.org.uk). Jess is available to discuss your potential involvement by email over the next two weeks while I am away on leave. I will then telephone all organisations that have expressed an interest during the week commencing 20th July.
 
Depending on the level of interest, we will then set up a short selection process that enables us to choose three pilot locations and partners. The aim is then to get the new bid to DWP for their end of August selection panel, so that we have a decision in September and a contract signed and monies flowing to pilot partners by as soon as possible after that.
 
It’s a challenging timescale, especially as it’s over the summer and people will be taking leave, but if you’re up for it – we’re up for it!
 
We’ve come this far and have an opportunity to get something up and running next year that will begin to demonstrate how the Community Allowance could work. It may not be what we know is needed in our most deprived communities but it’s a start and we have no intention of giving up. With your involvement we will keep up the pressure on politicians to realise the full potential of the Community Allowance over the long term.
 
We look forward to hearing what you think.
 
Thanks so much for your support.

The CREATE consortium

Hazel Blears had hardly packed her bags before her community empowerment legacy at DCLG was being questioned. Some commentators say the programme hasn’t been radical enough, others that it should be sidelined. What’s the reality, and what’s its potential?

The empowerment programme is a relatively small part of John Denham’s new ministerial portfolio but the ‘e’ word runs right across government. The problem is that it has almost run away with itself, popping up in documents from the Treasury, the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health (and in opposition statements) with no proper coordination by the programme specifically dedicated to it.

Health, education, justice, even housing and planning in DCLG itself, all have their own versions  of community involvement or engagement. These generally attack the issue from the top down, seeking to draw people into the agencies’ systems. But trying to induce participation without supporting internal community strengths is a short circuit that cuts off the energy it relies on.

The empowerment issue won’t go away (though labels may change) because at root it’s about the whole relationship between government and people. It’s also about making the public services affordable and effective under increasing demographic and economic pressure. The NHS needs to involve ‘patients and public’ not just as a principle or customer relations exercise but because in the long run there is no way the state can cope with the health problems of a long-lived population unless people take greater responsibility for their own wellbeing.

Less visibly, the same applies to all other services. The social and economic costs generated by crime, unemployment, ignorance, environmental damage will all outrun the managing capacity of the state unless they are also ameliorated directly by people. The community empowerment programme is the nearest thing in government policy to a strategy to share the task of managing society between people and government – it was originally called Together We Can. But it has also faltered in this vision, and become overly focused on the single aim of influencing public services, losing sight of the fact that people’s feelings of influence are the product of a cluster of activity which includes cohesion, volunteering, sense of belonging, social networks and community organisation, and that these objectives need to be pursued in the round.

Particular strengths of the programme are, firstly, that it has created a set of mechanisms for transmitting more power to local residents; and secondly, that it supports a delivery chain through national networks, regional champions and local community workers – who in practice are carrying much of the social capital, community cohesion and strengthening third sector agendas as well.

But its programmes are small¬ scale, while the measure of success is across the whole local population. The sense of influence can only be widened by getting equivalent mechanisms into the policies and practices of the big departments and programmes. While the empowerment programme has channelled some support to local workers, these allies on the front line have been reduced because DCLG has allowed neighbourhood renewal to lapse and has neglected to press other programmes to invest in community workers with an in-depth remit.

So where to now? The community empowerment programme should be sustained but mechanisms should be refined to ensure that they cascade the sense of ownership and influence out from those directly involved to wider and wider circles. New energy should be put into getting the full cluster of empowerment criteria (influence, social capital, volunteering, strong community sector) into the mainstream policies and guidance of other government programmes. And methods should be devised to get front line workers to respond positively to the spontaneous attempts of local people to exert influence, not just through special mechanisms and initiatives but through their day to day interaction with teachers, nurses, doctors, social workers, and police, and link this with the Treasury’s agenda to ’empower the front line workforce’.

Outcome of LPL meeting held June 16th  to consider issues affecting progress around land reform/community assets agenda and proposals for how to proceed
Present :
Andy Milne                      Scottish Urban Regeneration Network
Andy Wightman               Writer and researcher
Angus Hardie                  Local People Leading
Alistair McIntosh              GalGael,  Centre for Human Ecology
David Niven                     Individual (formerly Initiatives at the Edge)
Frazer Scott                     Forward Scotland
Geri Smyth                      Transition Scotland Support
Helen Pank                      Federation of City farms and Community Gardens
Ian Cooke                       Development Trusts Association Scotland
Jon Hollingdale                Community Woodlands Association
Natalie McCall                  Transition Arran / Glasgow Caledonian University
Norman MacAskill              SCVO
Mark Lazzeri                     Assynt Foundation
Tom Black                        Development Trusts Association Scotland
Tom Graham                    Crofters Association, Tenant farmer
Wendy Reid                      Development Trusts Association Scotland
 
Other LPL supporters who noted their active interest:
Chris Mitchell                    Kinghorn Community Land Initiative
Cllr Bryan Stuart                Aberdeenshire Council
James Hilder                     Mull and Iona Community Trust
Judy Wilkinson                  Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society
Neil Gerrard                       Community Land Unit
Pauline Gallagher              Neilston Development Trust
Patricia Robertson             Assynt Foundation
Robin Callander                Independent specialist adviser
 
 
Main concerns  expressed at meeting
·         Government enthusiasm for land reform has cooled
·         Land Reform  (Scotland) Act 2003 is not delivering expected outcomes
·         Previous commitment from Scottish Executive/ Scottish Government to  review the operation and  effectiveness of Land Reform Act has not been fulfilled
·         Levels of investment in a comprehensive programme of community asset acquisition and development have stalled
·         Standard of community capacity building per CLD is inadequate to meet the demands placed on community bodies in the pre and post acquisition of assets.
·         Transfers of local authority assets into community ownership are ad hoc and lack a national strategic focus viz a viz that provided by the Quirk Review in England
·         Common Good assets remain poorly documented with persistent financial irregularities and little opportunity for meaningful community oversight.
·         A commitment from Scottish Government to produce guidance for local authorities on the disposal of public assets at less than best consideration has not been fulfilled.
·         Scottish Government’s Community Empowerment Action Plan is not currently a cross government policy priority and consequently the community asset agenda sits outwith mainstream policy thinking
 
 
What action is required:
Proposed that a campaign of coordinated action should be pursued under the auspices of Local People Leading which should include the following key areas:
 
·         Community Right to Buy.   Registration and re-registration procedures should be simplified.  Scope of the Act should be extended to cover all land in Scotland.   Significant investment is required to raise awareness and understanding of the Act.
·         Investment.  Further public investment is required to support asset acquisition allied to new regulations and guidance to facilitate greater levels of transfer of public assets into community ownership
·         Capacity building support. More effective and appropriate levels of community development support should be available to communities to assist in pre and post acquisition support.
·         Common Good. All Local Authorities should have accurate asset registers and strategic plans for management of common good assets. Communities should be provided with greater powers over their Common Good 
·         Crown Estates. The Crown Estate in Scotland should be reformed as proposed in the report – New Opportunities for Public Benefits and endorsed by HIE, COSLA  and six local authorities from the Highlands and Islands.
·         Research and development.  Commission longitudinal research into community asset ownership to study impact on community resilience, social capital and wider impacts on civil society.

Research Summary

Local People Leading asked EKOS to help to gauge the views of supporters on how well local public bodies are serving the community and voluntary sector in Scotland.

We received a total of 73 responses by way of an online survey. The responses came from community groups, voluntary organisations, and social enterprises across Scotland.

The survey provided a revealing snapshot of the ambitions and progress of organisations, their relationships with local public bodies, and their ability to work with the public sector to make a difference locally.

The survey highlighted a number of main findings:

• Organisations are generally very ambitious to bring about change for their community. Their focus is on enabling more people to get involved in local decision-making, to introduce or extend local service provision, and to influence the way that public services are delivered.

• Organisations are generally positive about their recent progress. Almost three-quarters of survey respondents (71%) felt that they had been fairly successful or very successful in progressing their ambitions over the last 12 months.

• However, a number of main challenges have impacted on the recent success of organisations. These challenges relate largely to the changing public sector landscape in Scotland and the accompanying uncertainty, reduction in funding levels, new demands, and resource constraints that are arising for the sector.

• Despite these changes and challenges, organisations still remain generally optimistic about their future prospects. Almost three-quarters of survey respondents (74%) were very or fairly confident that they will be successful in progressing their ambitions over the next 12 months.

• Organisations are generally close to or rely on the public sector in a variety of ways. All of the organisations that responded to the survey had direct dealings, to a lesser or greater extent, with local statutory bodies.

• While generally knowledgeable about local public policy priorities, structures, and procedures, there are some important gaps in the sector’s understanding. There was notably less familiarity reported in relation to: opportunities to get involved in Community Planning processes; the way in which public service contracts are awarded; and the local priorities now being set out in Single Outcome Agreements.

• Significant concerns have been expressed by organisations in relation to their dealings with local public bodies. In particular respondents highlighted: an inability to secure long-term funding; the limited availability of capacity building assistance locally; and the inability to fully recover overhead costs from public contracts.

• Concerns have also been expressed regarding the influence of the community and voluntary sector in public decision-making. Less than one-quarter of respondents (22%) reported satisfaction with their ability to influence the decisions of public bodies.

• Some concerns were also expressed about the attitudes and behaviours of local public bodies. These concerns related largely to the willingness of public bodies to consult with or involve the sector in the policy-making process or to act fully on the views of the sector.

• On a positive note, relationships do generally appear to be improving. In two-in-every-five cases (39%) respondents indicated that their relationship with local public bodies had been getting better or much better during the last 12 months.

• However, in many cases the reported relationship with public bodies has not been changing (in 41% of cases) or has been deteriorating (in 20% of cases), with suggestions of increasing control and influence being exerted by public bodies (to the detriment of the sector).

• Overall, the survey feedback suggests that the public sector is having a slightly more positive than negative influence on the success of organisations. In 31% of cases this influence was characterised as positive or very positive and in 24% of cases it was deemed negative or very negative (45% of respondents suggested that the influence was neither positive nor negative).

• Where public bodies are having a positive influence, they are reportedly improving dialogue with the sector, recognising and accepting its contribution, collaborating where possible around shared goals, and actively supporting the sector to develop and expand its role in service delivery.

• On the other hand, where public bodies are exerting a negative influence on the sector, there has been a reported absence of communication, a failure to understand and recognise the contribution of the sector, an unwillingness to jointly plan and deliver services, and a failure to meaningfully support and empower the sector.

• Respondents provided many helpful suggestions on ways that public bodies could do more to improve their relationship with, and influence on the sector. For many, real change could only be achieved through improved dialogue, greater clarity on the desired role and contribution of the sector, and a genuine willingness to work with and through the sector to realise shared goals.

Author: Henry palmer, Social Enterprise Magazine

The government’s relationship with the banking sector is depicted as akin to that of an overly-liberal parent to their child. The government and its regulators have opted for a light touch approach, entrusting banks themselves to do the right thing.

But as minds focus on how to rebuild a banking system that is solid, fair and equitable, a chorus of voices from the social enterprise sector is beginning to ask whether it is time for government to adopt a more heavy handed approach to harness the collective power of banks.

According to critics, evidence of the industry’s contribution to tackling under-investment has been piecemeal and anecdotal. This has not satisfied the growing number of campaigners, who believe the UK should look to legislation overseas – particularly the US – which compels banks to be open and transparent about their activity in marginalised communities.

The concern that banks have been engaged in little more than gesture politics to keep the statute book at bay, was succinctly captured by the influential Social Investment Task Force – pre-economic meltdown – in 2001.

Appointed by then Chancellor Gordon Brown and chaired by venture capitalist Sir Ronald Cohen, the task force’s report said: ‘According to the British Bankers’ Association, banks have supported at least 70 local loan funds of various types. These are welcome moves. However, they are mostly inspired by philanthropy, public relations or marketing.’

Indeed, this view is supported by Niall Alexander, the former director of HBOS’s community banking unit, as he recalls his attempts to build on a widely acclaimed project to tackle financial exclusion in Wester Hailes, a deprived suburb of Edinburgh.

He recalls that while he received support from the highest echelons of the bank, including former HBOS CEO Sir James Crosby, who went on to become the deputy chair of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), this ‘never trickled down to middle management’.

Despite the success of the Wester Hailes Community Banking Agreement, Alexander says he was subsequently unable to secure the resources required to duplicate the project elsewhere. ‘Of course, the bank got their kudos early, good PR, a nice story. Once that had been picked up, they were less bothered.’

Faisel Rahman, managing director of east London-based Fair Finance, which offers financial services to local communities bypassed by mainstream banks, says: ‘I completely agree with Cohen’s view that banks are only interested in getting good PR and promoting themselves to government. This is not just about us understanding the willingness of specific banks to develop products and services that are suitable for under-served markets, but would also enable organisations, such as my own, to start filling gaps in the market.’

Before her departure, former communities secretary Hazel Blears raised the spectre of the government introducing new, powerful banking laws based on the decades-old Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in the US.

At the centre of the CRA is the full publication of lending data, allowing the general public to take banks to task if they do not meet their obligations to lend in the same areas they take deposits.

Speaking at an event for third sector bosses in London in April, Blears said her department was looking at ways to rebuild trust in financial institutions. ‘The US Community [Re]Investment Act, whereby financial institutions must plough some of their profits into compmnities, might serve as an interesting starting point,’ she said.

A flurry of action

With these few words, Blears set in motion a flurry of activity among campaigners, whose calls for such legislation before the banking bail-out had fallen on deaf ears. For many, the fact that a Cabinet minister was ready to champion their arguments said much about how far the balance of power had started to tilt away from the banks.

The DCLG has since commissioned a scoping study to assess the feasibility of legislation based on the CRA, with counterparts in both the Office of the Third Sector and the Treasury adding their thoughts and ideas into behind¬ the-scenes conversations. Despite Blears’ departure, a series of ‘invitation ¬only’ seminars have been taking place across the UK to guage the public’s appetite for CRA-based laws.

While the Treasury’s official line is that there is currently no ‘clear evidence’ of the need for a CRA in the UK, campaigners point out that the banks’ refusal to publish and share figures on lending leave us all in the dark when it comes to understanding the role of the banks in boosting wealth creation in poor neighbourhoods.

For Toby Blume, CEO of the Urban Forum, the part-nationalisation of names like Lloyds and RBS has given campaigners and the wider British public a newfound sense of legitimacy in calling for fundamental changes to the banking system.

Blume says: ‘There is a widespread feeling that the £90bn of public money invested in banks on the brink of collapse has offered little to communities and citizens. Citizens quite rightly want to feel that the money pumped into these ailing banks has been worthwhile.’

Meanwhile, Rahman says: ‘The financial crisis forced the government to make a decision to spend £70bn of taxpayers’ money over the course of one weekend. It seems right that as part of the public’s underwriting of banks, they should be allowed access to simple information about where they lend.’

eRA in the UK

Unsurprisingly, the British Bankers’ Association (BBA) is sticking to its long-held position that its members do not need to be coerced into action through regulation.

Brian Capon, a spokesman for the BBA, says: ‘In the UK, there is a high level of good practice being displayed across the financial inclusion and capability agenda by the leading banks with considerable efforts being made supporting the FSA and government [agendas] … Legislation could curb this.’

The BBA is also closely following the arguments of free marketeer commentators in the US, who have suggested that the CRA played a large role in the economic meltdown itself. ‘In the US, there is still an intensive debate on if and how the CRA has contributed o the sub-prime crisis,’ Capon says. ‘It would be unwise to move ahead with any similar requirements in the UK while this issue is still being examined.’

But this line of argument has surprised John Taylor, president and CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition in the US, who says it has completely failed to attract any political currency.

Indeed, he points to evidence given to a House of Representatives’ consumer credit committee in March this year, when the Federal Reserve’s director of consumer and community affairs, Sandra Braunstein, said: ‘I can state definitively … that the CRA is not one of the causes of the current crisis.

‘We have run data on CRA lending and where loans are located, and we have found that only six per cent of all higher cost loans were made by CRA¬ covered institutions in neighbourhoods targeted. So I can tell you, if that’s where you’re going, that CRA was not the cause of this loan crisis.’

But it is not just the industry itself warning against a wholesale import of the CRA into the UK. Sarah McGeehan, head of social finance at NEST A, believes it is not as simple as importing the CRA into the UK.

However, McGeehan adds: ‘While CRA might not be the complete answer, there is a sensible argument to suggest that if banks benefit from the extremely profitable bits of the market, there should be a responsibility to serve the whole of the market.’

The Community Development Finance Association (CDFA), whose members provide financial service in marginalised communities, has itself fallen short of calling for wholesale legislation.

Bernie Morgan, CEO of the CDFA, says: ‘CRA operates in a very different legal and fiscal framework. While we are warning against wholesale CRA for the UK, we want the CDFI sector to be a permanent and recognised part of the financial services industry. As we are seeing, CDFIs are essential in times of both boom and bust.’

Instead, the CDFA launched a campaign in May calling on banks and its members to adopt a voluntary code or ‘community finance charter’. Under the charter, the FSA would be able to take a bank’s record in serving marginalised communities into account when awarding a banking licence.

Greater transparency

But the CDFA – along with Fair Finance, the Social Enterprise Coalition, the Urban Forum, the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations and the Development Trusts Association to name a few – are all convinced of the need for quick and tough action to compel banks to come clean on where they lend.

The report says: ‘Some banks have clearly embraced the opportunity to disclose information, develop their understanding of these markets and work in partnership with CDFIs and other agencies. Others have not been proactive. Those who are more reticent must be required to disclose.’

Morgan adds: ‘It is vital to get banks to disclose activity to the same framework and the same regularity. We’re calling for disclosure so we can measure the contribution of one bank against another.’

Rahman agrees. ‘Disclosure will only ever work if each individual bank can be identified,’ he says. ‘It is only after we’re given access to the data, which would allow us to understand the complexities of financial exclusion, that we will be able to understand what further action could help.

‘It could be then that CDFIs work with banks to show them that banking in these areas can be done. If they are unwilling to undertake this work, one option would be to find ways to encourage them to invest in social enterprises who could help fix this market failure.’

Andrew Robinson, former head of Community Development Banking at RBS & NatWest and currently director at investment manager CCLA, says: ‘While people were spending, it was easy to see why the government favoured a carrot and stick approach – without the stick.

‘The prevailing view was that the banking system was working for most, so why attempt to burden it with red tape and bureaucracy and risk undermining the perceived success of the City.

Author: Ian MacWhirter, The Herald

Ten years ago this week, as we waited for the Queen formally to open the Scottish Parliament, I was still in the throws of moving back from London, where I’d been working in Westminster for over a decade. Well, it was a great national moment: the restoration of a parliament in Scotland after 300 years, a new Scotland, a great constitutional adventure. Wasn’t long before I was wondering if I’d made the right decision. Holyrood had been launched in ignominy and scandal. Any sense of national renewal was occluded by rows about expenses, poor-quality MSPs, irrelevant debates, indifferent legislation and financial irresponsibility. Politicians at Westminster sucked their teeth and lamented the failed opportunities.

Ten years on, the situation is almost exactly the reverse. The Scottish Parliament seems a model modern legislature, with its open and transparent expenses regime, its pre-legislative committees, fixed-term parliaments and proportional representation. It is Westminster that is mired in expenses scandals, accusations of economic mismanagement, budgetary irresponsibility and legislative irrelevance. MPs in Westminster, with their duck houses, property speculation and multiple jobs have become national pariahs, hardly daring to go out alone in their constituencies.

No-one is more surprised by this turn of events than MSPs, who aren’t used to regarding themselves as exemplars of probity and competence. But, somehow, I don’t think it will go to their heads. Holyrood was purpose-built to prevent elected members turning into arrogant, self-interested courtiers. They’re much too busy, for a start.

advertisement
Most commentators believe Westminster will now have to import many of the practices of Holyrood if it is to restore public respect, most obviously over allowances and second jobs. Elective dictatorship by No 10 is under serious challenge, and Holyrood now gives constitutional reformers a model to work from. In fact, the revival of Westminster was always an important part of the Holyrood project. Constitutional reform was primarily about restoring the sovereign right of the Scottish people to choose how they are governed, but it was also about breaking the Westminster monopoly of power, about bringing politics closer to the people, creating a legislative space for new political ideas.

Of course, Holyrood isn’t perfect by any means. It is still underpowered in important respects, especially over the economy, though this may be about to change following the Calman Report. The parliament hasn’t been tested yet by economic recession and the forthcoming cuts in spending will be challenging for a legislature that has not had to worry about how to raise the money it spends. There is still a strong hangover of petty party tribalism which creates divisions between the main parties in areas where they don’t really exist, such as the environment, health service reform and PFI. But devolution has, by any standards, been a significant achievement.

It has made a difference to people’s lives by passing legislation on everything from the smoking ban to free personal care. It has largely assuaged the Scottish grievance, and stopped Scots blaming London for everything that goes wrong here. Amazingly, it has helped restore trust in politics, as demonstrated by opinion polls such as last month’s Populus poll in the Times confirming that 70% of Scots believe devolution has been good for Scotland. Going around Scotland, even in the recession, you do get a sense that things are getting better.

And then there’s Andy Murray. No, the tennis phenomenon’s performance cannot be put down to the Scottish Parliament. But notice how there hasn’t been the usual quarrel over whether Murray is Scottish or British. Everyone knows he’s Scottish – even the folk on Henman Hill have pointedly refrained from changing its name to Murray Mound. It’s just not an issue any more. Some still gripe about Murray being hailed as British if he wins and Scottish if he loses, but not with any conviction. The fact of Scottish self-government, albeit limited, has made Scots more secure in their identity and less bothered about perceived slights to national honour.

It is very rare in politics that something actually works and we should not it let it pass unremarked, even if we don’t start popping BBC champagne corks in celebration. Devolution has been an achievement for that amorphous body called “civil society” – the various non-party organisations and public-spirited individuals who launched the Scottish Constitutional Convention 20 years ago.

Curious, then, that large parts of civil society apparently feel excluded. Last week I was invited to speak at a forum organised by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations with representatives from trades unions, civic groups, churches and NGOs. It has been looking into the “crisis of Scottish civil society”. Many people in the voluntary sector seem to believe that Holyrood has been taken over by politicians who have edged them out of influence and public recognition. Well, the trouble with parliaments is that they tend to attract politicians, so that’s hardly surprising.

Of course, politicians have their faults, like democracy itself, but we shouldn’t confuse the institution with the people who are elected to it. Elected members in Westminster and Holyrood are all drawn more or less from the same political gene pool: law, teaching, local government, civil service, trades unions, voluntary organisations. It’s not that the ones in Westminster are genetically inferior or innately corrupt; it’s just that the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy encourages MPs to behave badly. To that extent, the shame-faced dishonourable members are right to complain: “But it’s the system that’s to blame.” The point about constitutions is to create structures that bring out the best in people, not the worst.

No, my concern about Scotland is not that civil society is dead, but that the Scottish media is in danger of dying. The indigenous Scottish press is losing readers; STV is giving up any pretence of public-service broadcasting and the cash-strapped BBC has lost the will and the means to lead political debate in Scotland. The Scottish Broadcasting Commission’s call for a Scottish digital channel has been ignored by Westminster, despite unanimous backing in Holyrood. Increasingly, Scots see themselves through the prism of an anglo-centric media which nods in the direction of devolution occasionally but really doesn’t understand life outside the M25.

Somehow, I don’t think this week’s tenth anniversary of devolution is going to be celebrated in the UK media for what it is – the most radical and the most successful reform of the British constitution since the universal suffrage. A peaceful revolution.