Official Report 501KB pdf
We move on to agenda item 3. I welcome our third panel of witnesses, who will provide evidence on the draft community empowerment (Scotland) bill and the consultation on it.
Yes. To give a wee bit of context, I point out that I am here as the director of housing and social work and as community planning lead. The council and the partnership support the intent and spirit behind the bill. I guess that, as ever, the devil will be in some of the detail of its implementation.
I am here in place of Baillie Aileen Colleran, who is our executive member for communities and the chair of the Glasgow community planning partnership.
I point out that there is no bill; there is a draft bill at the moment. Beyond that, we recognise that it covers a broad spectrum of responsibilities and that you will probably not be able to comment on them all today. If, in future, there is anything that you want to let us know, you can do that in writing.
North Lanarkshire Council has a long history of partnership working and, in particular, supporting third sector organisations—that issue has already been discussed. We recognise the importance of the third sector’s contribution to regeneration and sustainable growth through the delivery of many of our local services in North Lanarkshire.
Thank you very much for inviting me, convener.
I am strategy manager for Orkney Islands Council, and I manage our community planning partnership.
We will start off with third sector interfaces. Ms Johnston spoke about North Lanarkshire’s history of involving the third sector in partnership work. Does the third sector have a role at the very highest level of community planning partnerships? Perhaps the witnesses can explain what that role is and who the representatives are.
Our third sector organisation, VANL, has a place at North Lanarkshire partnership board meetings. June Vallance is the usual representative from that organisation, and she plays a very full role around community engagement and the services that VANL delivers. In addition, we have a working group whose theme is developing the partnership, and that group also has a representative from the third sector.
VANL? You are talking in acronyms, Ms Johnston.
Sorry—VANL is Voluntary Action North Lanarkshire.
Thank you. We know that, as many of us visited North Lanarkshire recently. Are you saying that there is third sector representation at the highest level of the community planning partnership?
Yes.
Our community planning structure in Glasgow is effectively a pyramid. We have a strategic board at the top, and then three sector partnerships. I am chair of one of them, representing the north-west, the north-east and the south of the city. We also have 21 area partnerships at ward level. We have third sector representatives at each level: at the top level, at the sector level and at the area partnership level.
So there is third sector representation at the strategic board level.
Yes. The third sector has a vote on each of those bodies, just as councillors or other representatives have.
Our structural arrangements are similar to those of Glasgow. We have a strategic board, on which the third sector is represented at the highest level, which is the executive group. We also have six local community planning groups in Aberdeenshire, partly to reflect the geography and partly because it is key that we engage people at the local level so that they can influence service delivery. We would certainly welcome some discussion about how that approach can be strengthened. If that is where we are going, we would certainly support that.
Our local body, Voluntary Action Orkney, is a founder member of our partnership and has been at the forefront right from the beginning, in 2000. The first time round, in 2003, it was disappointing that the legislation did not give greater recognition to the role of the voluntary sector. This time round, Voluntary Action Orkney made a submission suggesting that third sector interfaces should have a more formal statutory role, given that partnerships are now established in every area of the country.
The director of the Edinburgh Voluntary Organisations Council—EVOC—is on the Edinburgh partnership board. The Edinburgh partnership has an executive, on which the director of the volunteer centre sits. They represent the Edinburgh compact partnership, which involves the third sector, social enterprise and so on.
How does your community planning partnership ensure that its third sector and voluntary sector representative communicates with the voluntary sector and third sector organisations that they claim to represent? For example, how does Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector, which is an umbrella organisation for, I think, more than 300 organisations in Glasgow, communicate with those organisations that it represents about what is taking place and what it, as the voice of the voluntary sector, is saying on the community planning partnership?
Councillor Findlay, you can go first since Glasgow was mentioned.
John Wilson’s question highlights the fact that there is a difficulty with some of the representatives who are on community planning partnerships, and with identifying effectively who to pick to go on them. There is also a question as to whether we should have private sector input from local businesses, but, again, who do you pick?
While we have been taking evidence on other topics that we have covered of late, we have found a difficulty with that word “pick”. A lot of bodies do not see themselves as being represented by the person who has been picked to represent the voluntary sector. That might be one of the difficulties that have yet to be overcome.
We must remember that community planning does not just happen in the central board or steering group or whatever you call it. It happens in the other groups that are involved. In Orkney, we have a network of thematic groups. We have one specifically for the third sector—the third sector forum, which is chaired by Voluntary Action Orkney and has members from a wide range of different groups. Those members also sit on subject-specific groups, so they are very well disseminated throughout the partnership.
We are well aware of the different structures and the representation at various levels within those structures. We have found that folks have been most concerned about representation at the top.
John Wilson asked a good question; indeed, for us in Aberdeenshire, how we get the most out of our third sector interface generally is a live question that is a bit wider. The third sector plays an active role at the highest level, and although I recognise the point about structures and other ways of contributing, that is the reality in Aberdeenshire. Local third sector groups are very much involved in our local community planning groups. It is absolutely right that in community planning, the priority is the partnership and its commitments, but we are also trying to reinforce a culture, or a way of working, that becomes naturally how we work. Formal structures should be the means to an end, rather than being the end in itself.
The third sector in North Lanarkshire is intrinsically linked throughout the delivery of services. It is not seen as a bolt-on partner at all. A pilot joint resourcing project in the Craigneuk ward is being led by our third sector, with support from council officers and so on. At the strategic level, we have just started looking at the joint resourcing aspects that were mentioned earlier. Again, the third sector is very much a partner at that table. We just see that as part of our normal everyday businesses.
I agree with that. It is the same for us. EVOC represents the interests of the third sector and it certainly has an excellent reputation for engaging with and involving the third sector around council or CPP priorities. We can demonstrate that time and time again through joint resourcing and so on.
We will talk to third sector representatives next week, so it will be interesting to see whether they share your opinions.
We have democratically elected representatives from the council.
But is there any community representative who is not an elected member?
Our third sector interface representative is a very good link into our local community.
So the answer is no—there is no community representative.
It depends how you define that.
I define it as somebody from the community who is not from the third sector interface and who is not an elected member, so the answer is that, at the strategic level, Orkney does not have any community representation on its strategic board.
I think that our members from the council might argue that they are in that position.
They might well do that, but I am trying to get at a certain point and I am not including elected members.
We engage with three community councils in that way, but beyond that, I agree with Anna Whelan’s comments in relation to the wider representatives.
So the answer at the moment would be no.
That is right.
We have community representatives who are mainly from community councils. We have between four and six of them on each of our ward-based area partnerships. We also have community representatives on each of our three sector bodies, each of which is probably larger than many other community planning partnerships at the strategic level. However, we do not have any community representatives at the strategic, centralised level.
Under the definition that the convener gave, our answer would be no. People from local communities feed in through lower levels.
We have such two places on the board. One is for the Edinburgh association of community councils, which is an umbrella body for community councils—they come together and elect a person to sit on the Edinburgh partnership board. The other is for a board member who brings an equalities and rights perspective.
Okay. Thank you.
Mr Findlay, you state in your submission:
That was in relation to—
It is in the section headed “Community rights to request to participate in processes to improve service delivery”.
Sorry—do you have a paragraph number?
Yes. It is paragraph 3.7 in your submission. I did not understand what you mean by
That relates not to physical communities but to communities of interest—those who have an interest in social care, mental health issues or various other things that are not necessary based in one geographical location.
Are they not one and the same thing?
No. A local community could be—
Can I help? Would it include folk such as ethnic minorities, the Gypsy Traveller community and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender folk—that kind of community of interest?
Yes—absolutely. Thank you, convener.
Thank you.
In the earlier evidence session with the minister, I touched on the issues that can arise around public liability insurance, particularly in situations in which local community organisations are looking to take on, or have taken on, the operation of an asset on a leased basis or—as happens in some cases—on an ownership basis. How do you see that landscape being affected by the proposed bill?
We will go from right to left for the answers this time.
It is not for me to decide on the issue at this time. We have talked about building capacity and providing support, which would be part of the discussion about how we implement the bill.
Our stance is similar to that of Edinburgh. It is not for us to make the decision at this time.
If I asked you not to make a decision but to offer an opinion, would that change the responses?
I believe that, if something is working well, we need to take cognisance of and understand that. I would like to learn lessons from areas where the model is working well and is a good model to take forward.
The approach would be looked at case by case. It would not necessarily be consistent across the board and would depend on circumstances.
I am fortunate enough to know about the issue as a councillor, because of asset transfers in my ward, and from a professional point of view, as I worked for a local authority that undertook asset transfers. Insurance might well be included in considering the market value or the package that is put together for a transfer, whether that involves a lease, ownership or whatever.
We see the draft bill as helpful in moving towards getting a good outcome for community groups. We have a community asset transfer policy that will reflect some of the issues. If it would help and be of interest to the committee, we can share that after the meeting.
It would be useful if you sent that to the committee. It would be useful for us to look at the experiences of rural areas, some of which have made advances more quickly than urban areas.
This is a good example of one size not fitting all. In Orkney, which is a small community, ownership of assets by the council is largely regarded as community ownership already. We do not expect a big uptake of the measure, because bodies are often happy for the council to take over the liability for maintaining buildings. However, we are open to proposals. I agree that specific liabilities would have to be considered case by case.
I will look further into community groups. The third sector has been mentioned; it has a broad definition that captures charities with millions of pounds in reserves down to one or two-person operations. Conflicts can arise in communities between community groups that to all intents and purposes do similar things but from different perspectives or which were formed as individual groups because of the personalities involved. How do local authorities assess the approach that a community group takes or the work that it does to ensure that conflicts that might exist in communities are not exacerbated?
The question is interesting. I will not go into the details of individual disputes in Orkney, but there is definitely a potential tension between long-established groups such as community councils—we probably have the best-established network of them in Scotland—and newer groups, such as development trusts, that are set up to deal with what might be seen as more exciting and newer projects. Our task as a partnership is to keep all those groups focused on our overriding aims, which are expressed in the single outcome agreement. We want to do the best for our communities and not let individual tensions get in the way of that.
Our decentralised structure gives us some good connections back into our communities. I will not go into individual cases, but we would act as a facilitator, as best we could, to ensure that—as far as possible—we got some kind of local consensus. I know that that is a very general answer, but thankfully there have not been too many occasions that I could point to in the recent past when the divisions were such that they caused a rift locally.
In Glasgow, one of our concerns about community planning is that it is often seen as being about neither communities nor planning. We are seeking to deal with that perception through community budgeting and community asset mapping, whereby we map the assets and services in a community with the help of local people, community councils and the community planning partners. By doing that—there is an on-going exercise to digitally map a lot of that information—we can look, in relation to relatively small budgets, at where there is duplication or gaps in service provision or the provision of facilities.
I think that Mr McDonald’s point was about what happens if tensions exist. What if one part of the community wants one thing and another part wants something else, or if one charity wants one thing and another wants something else? How do you deal with that situation?
Basically, it comes back to local need. If an established need has been identified in the area through the community planning partners, community councils and local residents, surely a proposal that comes in that better meets that need should be given priority.
In North Lanarkshire, we have local regeneration managers who work very closely with the communities. They have a difficult job when tensions arise, but they try to mediate and so on. We also have local area action plans that set out the priorities for areas, and those are linked back up through the various strands of the single outcome agreement.
Similarly, we have local community plans, which set the priorities for an area.
I note from the submissions that there are different views on the definition of a community body. What I was driving at in my previous question was that community councils are the statutory consultee that a council has to consult, so it does not necessarily have to consult other community groups and organisations. How cognisant are councils of the various groups that might list themselves—or be recognised in communities—as community organisations even though the council might not recognise them or have a formal relationship with them?
I will add to that question. Over the piece, we have found that many community councils are not elected and that, in some places, they are seen as being self-appointed. In other places, they are seen as not being representative of the community while other bodies are seen as being so. How do you deal with that, Ms Roccio?
We involve not only community councils, but all the other community bodies. Our definition is much broader. Everybody has a voice in the same way that community councils do.
Similarly, we recognise that the statutory requirements relating to the community forum and the community councils do not always result in the local community voice being represented. We have community engagement officers who work in local communities alongside the local regeneration managers to ensure that we capture all the voices in each community.
I do not doubt that defining a community body is a difficult job, as it can be all things to all people. Glasgow City Council has highlighted the use of the word “company” in the draft bill. We suggest that the word “organisation” should be used, as “company” usually refers to a limited company.
Again, I will start by describing how things work at a local level in Aberdeenshire, as that might help to deal with the question that was posed.
Unusually, all our community council elections are contested, including even those on islands with a population of around 50 people, so the positions are clearly very sought after. We regard the organisations as very democratic and we consult them fully.
It is good to hear that community council elections are contested somewhere in Scotland, as that is not always the case; it is unfortunately not always the case where there should be a real contest.
I think that we mentioned in our submission two scenarios in which there might be competing demand. In one scenario a transfer might be contrary to the council’s long-term strategy and we would want to hold on to an asset for strategic reasons. The other possibility, of course, is a speculative acquisition, perhaps by a body that then passes the asset on to a third party. Our suggestion in that case is that the local authority should have a right to first refusal: when a community asset is going to be transferred on again, the council should have the first option to buy it back.
I have nothing to add on that topic.
That is fine. Does anyone else wish to add anything? Not much response there, Mr Wilson.
As I said—
Oh, sorry, Ms Roccio.
Obviously, you have our submission. However, we are co-producing an asset transfer policy, which we hope will address some of the questions that people will ask. Initially, we have put out a call for people who want to be involved in the development of that policy—what it would look like, potential ideas of property and land and so on—to get in touch with me.
I was throwing out the question to find out whether the local authorities represented here have worked out a policy process for deciding whether a community asset transfer, when requested by a community, should take precedence over any other bids that are made for that property or land.
I do not know why there is not a policy in place at the moment. I can get back to the committee as soon as I find that out, but I do not have the reason for that.
That would be useful. Are you aware of any community asset transfers that have taken place in Edinburgh in recent times? If so, under what circumstances did they take place, if there is not a policy? Were they dealt with on an individual basis?
I would have to get back to the committee on that.
North Lanarkshire Council discussed a draft community asset transfer policy at a committee meeting on 20 February, section 2 of which clearly details what would be involved in a community asset transfer. The intention is that the document will go to committee for final approval in the August cycle this year.
Glasgow City Council is developing a process, associated documentation and governance arrangements around community asset transfer and has set up a fund of more than £1 million to facilitate that. We have already had various transfers of community assets to organisations, for instance the transfer of the management of a community centre to its existing management committee and, in my area, the lease of a former tenants hall to a local youth group. However, such transfers are done on an ad hoc basis. The policy, which will be introduced in the next financial year, will provide the governance arrangements surrounding future asset transfers.
When you say the next financial year, do you mean 2014-15?
Yes.
Aberdeenshire Council agreed a community asset transfer policy last year and we have used it. Our experience is that it is a bit clunky—to use a technical term—and, because it is fairly new, people are perhaps a wee bit more cautious about it. However, there is an absolute commitment to make it work for all the reasons that we have described today. We hope that the bill will add value to our policy, and we are open minded about how today’s discussion, and those that we will have in future, will help us to do that.
We would appreciate that, Mr Johnson.
The issue is slightly outside my area of expertise. To the best of my knowledge, we do not have such a policy. Even if we did, we would want to revisit it once the bill was enacted because there are things in the bill that we would want to embed in any asset transfer policy.
I am not normally the negative one on the committee, but I feel that I must be today. When you introduced yourselves, you said that the draft bill looks good and that you are all 100 per cent behind it. However, you said that there are implications. Are those financial implications?
At the moment, the implications are around support and capacity building more than resource, but we do not know what the bill will look like. I suggest that we must be sure that we are talking about empowerment, and the ownership of property and land are not necessarily a measure of an empowered community. We could use other measures: we have talked about participative budgeting, co-production and the Christie recommendations on involving people in the design and delivery of services. For me, it is about building support and capacity to ensure that all communities—not just those that have resources—can be more empowered than they feel they are at present.
The implication may be financial, because the bill could result in the capital receipts going down or whatever, but that would be looked at as part of the cost benefit analysis for a property. From a practical point of view it is about capacity building, and our local regeneration managers need to be up to speed to support our organisations. It is about the processing of applications and the appeals process that people would need to go through. It is also about the changes to our service delivery mechanisms, the business support that we need to offer and the packages that we, as a local authority, must offer both to support businesses and, within our internal processes, to make it happen.
My comments are much the same as those of the previous two speakers. The financial implications will be around better capacity building in the third sector organisations and our community councils.
Can I stop you there, Councillor Findlay? I think that one of the things that baffles members of the public is when local authorities turn round and say that they are not sure about common good assets and do not have a register of them. It sometimes takes a very long time to establish whether a piece of land or property is held in the common good account. In addition, something held in that account might not belong to it, because it was never established as a common good asset. It is very difficult for members of the public to get their heads round the fact that local authorities often do not know what common good assets they do and do not own.
I agree. It is a historical situation. I think that some burgh councils would not necessarily have known what was or was not common good; it goes back to the days of burgh councils, because it was their acquisitions that are now held as common good. Part of the problem is that not all acquisitions by burgh councils are common good. I can completely understand the public’s frustration with councils trying to decide what is or is not common good, but the public must realise that a lot of things that might be classified by a council as common good are not assets but liabilities. A lot of common good is parks and things like that, which are a drain on the council’s resources. If a common good fund was the only mechanism for paying for the maintenance of such things, they would not be sustainable.
Many folk out there would see what is proposed as an opportunity, but is it fair to say that you see it as more of a threat than an opportunity?
It is muddying the waters. We need a proper definition of the common good in order to go forward. Even if councils spent thousands and thousands of pounds to create common good registers, they would not be definitive unless there was a proper definition of the common good.
We might write to you individually about common good practices in your local authorities, because we could probably be here all day discussing common good alone. Do you have a comment, Mr Johnson?
I have nothing to add to my colleagues’ comments about resources.
Ms Whelan, do you have anything to add?
I will go back to the question, which was about the general implications and whether we are uncomfortable with them. There are one or two assumptions underpinning the bill that we are slightly uncomfortable with. One of them was encapsulated earlier by the minister, when he said that he had assumed that local authorities would be negative and try to put up barriers, and that other bodies would be against us, but we have established that there is no antagonism.
I will move on to the subject of allotments. I note that North Lanarkshire Council has no policy on allotments but that it is about to formulate an allotment strategy. Allotments are important in the cities, particularly in Edinburgh and Glasgow, but there is a great shortage of allotments there. The councils seem to be reluctant to provide allotments because they do not make enough money out of them and they require a lot of manpower and administration. Will you comment on that situation, particularly for Edinburgh and Glasgow? Obviously, North Lanarkshire Council has not come up with anything yet.
And there are also the bounds of the Allotments (Scotland) Act 1892.
I would have to come back to the committee on that.
I know that the issue can be complex and is not easy.
Although we do not have a strategy, we have many allotments across North Lanarkshire. We recognise their importance for health and wellbeing and they link with our themes, although, as our submission stated, we do not have a strategy on them.
Glasgow City Council has a strategy on allotments, and we support the proposals on them. However, we have made a point about including raised beds and quarter and half plots, which are popular.
Are there huge waiting lists?
Yes.
I see other folk nodding.
As you would expect in a rural authority, we have quite a number of allotments. Our approach or policy on that is dealt with predominantly by the housing service. Beyond that, I would need to get back to you with detailed comments.
I used to have an allotment in south London, so I am keen on them. However, this is another good example of a measure that perhaps does not fit so well with the strategic intent of the bill. The provisions are terribly detailed, as they have to take into account small communities. In Orkney, land is not as expensive as it is in places such as Edinburgh or Glasgow, so the issue is not so big. However, we are broadly in favour of what is proposed.
Should we be legislating on allotments? Is it worth doing so? What do you think about the proposal to define allotments rather narrowly?
We support the proposal in principle, but we would want the provision to be flexible and not specific about what the allotment size should be. I agree with my colleague from Glasgow that we should include raised beds and all the other options that are now available.
I agree. There might also be an opportunity to look at private allotments. Many allotments in Glasgow are privately owned rather than owned by the council. There are also allotments on old British Railways land and various other types. We need to look at the whole gamut of allotments and how they have developed. For instance, many farmers might be interested in providing part of fields at the edge of towns for allotments.
Does Ms Whelan or Mr Johnson have anything to add?
No.
No.
I seek a quick yes or no answer. Do you think that the current legislation is a bit old hat and that it probably does not deal with all the modern-day scenarios? I am seeing nods of agreement from everyone—thank you.
I want to take us back to an issue that we discussed 10 or 15 minutes ago, which is common good, notwithstanding the comments that we have heard and the correspondence that will take place. Some of the witnesses highlighted concerns regarding common good and issues such as lists. The COSLA submission states:
Councillor Findlay, you had the most to say about that.
Glasgow has a list of common good assets, although it is not particularly long. However, in line with many other local authorities, if there is a question about common good or a proposal to lease or sell an area of land or a building, we conduct a common good analysis.
It is a complex area. Does anyone else feel able to answer that question?
We have a register, and I would agree with COSLA’s comments about ensuring that the process is not onerous in the future.
Our position is in essence the same. We have a register, and you will see from our submission that it would not be our starting point to add to that but, if a request was made about a particular piece of land, we would support the work of looking into that to ensure that progress could be made.
The answers have been helpful. I return to your earlier comments, convener, when you said that the public may be a bit confused about common good. When it comes to proposals that moneys be taken out of a common good fund, I find it difficult to get my head around some of the responses. Although there is a common good list and there are funds, councils do not know exactly what is in common good. I cannot see how people can take money from a fund if they do not know whether it is complete. I find that quite strange.
Would one of the witnesses like to tackle that?
It sounds like an accounting issue to me.
That is a solicitor saying, “I am not an accountant.” I have heard that one before.
Yes.
I thank the witnesses for their evidence. The clerks will provide a note on what further evidence we would like. I realise that it is a complex area and that some of you may have restricted knowledge and may not be able to cover all that the bill encompasses.