Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill (CERB) Reference Group
Tuesday 13 November 2012: Scottish Government, Conference Room 1, Victoria
Quay, Edinburgh.
Co-chairs:
Derek Mackay MSP, Minister for Local Government and Planning
Cllr Harry McGuigan, COSLA Spokesperson for Community Wellbeing and Safety
Groups present and representatives:
ACES
Age Scotland
Audit Scotland
BIG Lottery
Carnegie UK Trust
CEMVO Scotland
Community Land Scotland
Equality and Human Rights Commission
DTAS
Forestry Commission Scotland
Greenspace Scotland
HIE
Improvement Service
Inclusion Scotland
Oxfam Scotland
Planning Aid Scotland
Poverty Truth Commission
RTPI Scotland
SCDC
SCVO
Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society
Scottish Community Alliance
Scottish Health Council
Scottish Futures Trust
Scottish Land and Estates
Scottish Property Federation
Scottish Sports Alliance
SOLACE
SOLAR
Supporting Social Enterprise Partnership
SYP/YoungScot/Youthlink Scotland
Nick Allan
Callum Chomczuk
Antony Clark
Jacqui Killeen
Jennifer Wallace
Eleanor McKnight
Peter Peacock
Euan Page
Ian Cooke
Bob Frost
Julie Proctor
Anne MacDonald
Colin Mair
Tressa Burke
Judith Robertson
Petra Biberbach
Martin Johnstone
Craig McLaren
Andrew Paterson
Ruchir Shah
Judy Wilkinson
Angus Hardie
Richard Norris
Colin Proctor
Sarah-Jane Laing
Mandy Catterall
Kim Atkinson
David Martin
Andrew Fraser
Duncan Thorp
Louise MacDonald
Apologies:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Scottish Retail Consortium
Shelter Scotland
In attendance:
Alasdair McKinlay: Community Empowerment Unit, Scottish Government
Kate Thomson-McDermott: Community Empowerment Unit, Scottish Government
Anna Gilbert; Community Empowerment Unit, Scottish Government (Secretariat)
James Fowlie: COSLA
Katie Green: COSLA
1
Welcome and Introductions
1.
Derek Mackay MSP welcomed attendees to the second CERB Reference
Group meeting and, in recognition that not all had been able to attend the first
meeting, invited the Group to introduce themselves.
2.
The Minister thanked all those who contributed and supported others to
contribute to the consultation and welcomed the excellent response which reflected
views from across the sectors. The Minister noted that the aims of the proposed Bill
will need to be met through building on best practice, removing barriers and
providing support and guidance. Whilst recognising the importance of all aspects of
the responses, the Minister stressed that the purpose of this meeting was to focus on
legislative proposals.
3.
Councillor McGuigan also welcomed the excellent response to the
consultation and felt the wide variety of responses showed that the ideas in the
consultation had sparked healthy debate. Cllr McGuigan noted the range of existing
good practice discussed in the analysis and that, in order to avoid potentially
narrowing the parameters enabling communities’ empowerment, the following should
be considered alongside the development of legislation:



the need to develop detailed guidance alongside legislation to aid more
ambitious outcomes across sectors;
the need to recognise the necessity of cultural change; and
the need to recognise the realities of current economic conditions.
Minutes of meeting of 12 September 2012
4.
Minutes of the last meeting were agreed for publication.
Discussion Session
5.
To enable a structured and meaningful discussion on the extensive analysis it
was suggested that the Executive Summary be used as a framework. It was also,
however, recognised that each of the sections discussed in the consultation were
interconnected and that when going forward all proposals would be considered in the
round.
Engagement in Community Planning
6.
The responses on ideas to strengthen community engagement in Community
Planning, which indicated support for legislative change to improve current practice,
were considered. There was a general view that more could be done to enhance
community engagement, and that the different nature of the sectors involved and
possible need for refreshed guidance should be considered alongside potential
legislation.
7.
It was felt that the polarised nature of responses from a variety of
organisations highlighted the different expectations of organisations across the
sectors and that there should be more focus on driving and encouraging partnership
working. The most appropriate structures for engagement with the community were
2
also discussed along with further consideration of how to ensure engagement across
the wide range of community groups (geography, practice and interest).
8.
The potential for Community Councils to play a role in facilitating the
engagement of public services with the community was discussed, however, some
concerns were expressed about the variable nature of the sector. There was strong
support for all community groups being encouraged and supported to empower
themselves to enable them to be appropriately involved in the Community Planning
process.
9.
Equality considerations were discussed more widely. It was felt that proposed
legislation offered an opportunity to ensure that those from vulnerable groups are
given the opportunity to engage in a meaningful way avoiding the potential for further
marginalisation. Engagement within current spatial planning procedures were
referred to as an example of good practice with the suggestion that it be explored
further.
10.
The need for strengthening leadership and promoting best practice within
Community Planning partners was discussed further. There was a general view that
Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) would be the most appropriate body on
which to place a duty to engage. There was some consensus that a duty on the
general public sector rather than focus on CPPs could be confusing. The Bill was
considered a good opportunity to capture and highlight current good practice and
promote joint accountability among Community Planning partners.
Community Councils
11.
The Group were reminded that a separate review of Community Councils had
taken place and that the short-life working group had now reported its
recommendations, which would be considered more widely before the Scottish
Government and COSLA decided which to progress. The working group’s report,
their recommendations, and the responses to the consultation did not highlight
strong support for Community Councils to take on new statutory roles. It was also
noted that the current legislative provisions for Community Councils were flexible
and did not preclude them from undertaking a wide variety of roles.
12.
The disparate nature of Community Councils was discussed more widely
including how representative and accountable they currently are and what roles they
currently undertake. There were mixed views amongst the group around their
continued relevance in the current community landscape and it was felt that this Bill
could be the opportunity to be decisive in helping to clarify their future role.
Third Sector
13.
It was felt that the diverse range of organisations within the third sector are
part of its strength. There are often a wide range of views within the sector that need
to be considered. It was questioned whether the third sector’s role in the Community
Planning process was more facilitative rather than representative.
3
14.
Mechanisms to facilitate consensual views rather than single voices, whereby
strengthening the role of the third sector were discussed more widely, including,
involvement in setting Community Planning meeting agendas; building in sufficient
time to seek and consider meaningful views on issues to be discussed at meetings;
and exploring the benefits of requiring consensual sign off to allow issues to
progress. It was felt that this approach could encourage focussed partnership
working and demonstrate the benefits of working together to achieve outcomes.
15.
Finally, it was also noted that a range of work has been, and continues to be
undertaken, to support third sector interfaces and that these issues are best
addressed as part of this ongoing discussion rather than through this proposed Bill.
National Standards for Community Engagement and Accountability
16.
The group broadly agreed with the views reflected in the analysis on the ideas
around the National Standards and accounting for quality in community engagement
and felt these ideas would be encompassed when considering engagement in
Community Planning.
Named Officer
17.
The need for a named officer was discussed briefly. Whilst it was felt that it
would be beneficial to have a named officer as a point of contact, there was no
appetite for a local authority named official with specific responsibility and
accountability for community engagement due to the far reaching nature of
engagement over different work-streams. It was also noted that community
engagement should be part of all public service officials role and that having one
named officer may distract from this.
Tenant’s Right to Manage
18.
The group did not feel that the analysis indicated any enthusiasm for Tenants’
Right to Manage and that perhaps consideration could be given to raising further
awareness of existing rights.
Community involvement in service design and delivery
19.
The group then discussed the current processes in community service
delivery and the opportunities offered by this Bill to improve current practice. There
was a general view that involvement in the process could be improved by improved
community engagement in general and through guidance rather than further
legislation. The potential to improve community engagement and participation in the
commissioning of services through the upcoming Procurement Reform Bill was also
noted. Some also felt that capacity building was an important consideration and key
to enabling communities and interest groups to engage and influence decisions.
4
Community directed spending
20.
The group was generally supportive of the principle of community directed
spending but felt that this is easier to do in times of economic growth rather than
decline and should be explored further.
An ‘urban’ community Right to Buy
21.
There was general support for an ‘urban’ community right to buy, with the
benefits it could offer communities by freeing up investment opportunities. Whilst
supportive, however, it was felt that this may not work in an urban environment in the
same way as it does in a rural one, and that that the definition of community in this
instance would be critical. It was noted that the upcoming review of the existing right
to buy legislation as part of the Land Reform Review would be critical in getting this
right.
Community asset ownership
22.
The group then discussed practicalities of community asset ownership,
including, mechanisms to highlight risks; the assets place in the development plan;
simplified methods to identify the status of properties in the local authority estate
including whether they were for available for sale on the open market as opposed to
available for transfer.
23.
This led to a wider discussion on the transfer and management of public
sector assets, and the interlinked nature of the proposals. It was felt that some
communities would prefer a right to lease rather than buy – or a right to manage
rather than own. This highlighted the need for consideration of a range of options
which recognise the different nature and needs of communities.
Common Good
24.
The discussion turned to Common Good with widespread recognition that this
is a highly sensitive issue which evokes polarised and often controversial views
within communities. Whilst Common Good continues to be a cluttered landscape it
was recognised that it would benefit from further consideration and better clarity.
Allotments and Grow Your Own
25.
The group then briefly discussed the opportunity this Bill offered to modernise
legislation currently governing allotments. It was felt that this was an ideal
opportunity to update legislation to reflect the current and evolving community and
environmental landscape which in turn could offer wider health and wellbeing
benefits to communities.
Temporary Use
26.
This led to a wider discussion on leases; temporary leases; and temporary
use agreements and the opportunity these proposals offered communities,
particularly urban communities, to be involved in grow their own projects. It was also
noted that although community growing was often a key use of land by communities,
5
any proposals to promote temporary use should not limit the range of uses
communities may wish to make of temporary spaces.
27.
It was recognised that there was a need to consider the planning implications,
but for this to be generally successful both parties, i.e. landowner and those with the
projects, would need to work together to develop infrastructures and long term
strategies that would be mutually beneficial offering more likelihood of any projects
being enduring and successful.
Empty property
28.
A general discussion on dangerous and defective buildings; compulsory
purchase, and power to enforce sale or lease of empty properties followed which
reflected the views outlined in the analysis.
Assessing the Impacts
29.
This section of the discussion concluded with a general discussion on the
continued need for equality impact assessments to be imbedded and continually
considered when engaging more widely with communities, and when considering
definitions of communities.
Definition of Community
30.
The importance of getting the definition of ‘community’ correct was
considered. It was recognised that this would be complex as there are widely varying
views on how a community should be defined. The National Forest Land Scheme
was cited as a good example and it was suggested that this model be further
explored when considering definitions.
31.
It was agreed that developing practical definition(s) of community that are fit
for purpose is key when developing legislation and the group’s expertise on this
matter would be welcomed when progressing this area of the Bill. A request was
made for current definitions of ‘community’ to be collated so that they may be
considered by the group and it was agreed that a list would be compiled for wider
consideration. (Action – Secretariat)
Next meeting
32.
The Minister concluded the meeting and advised that the next meeting would
be arranged for early summer 2013.
CERB Reference Group Secretariat
November 2012
6