Consultation on the Fire and Rescue Framework for Scotland 2013

Consultation on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

Response Questionnaire

RESPONSE BY COMMUNITY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGERS SCOTLAND

Chapter 3 - Proposals with draft legislation

Please read the draft Bill provisions before you answer these questions. You do not need to answer all the questions in this questionnaire, only answer the questions that you have an interest in. Separate questionnaires are provided for each chapter of the consultation paper.

Please make sure you also return the Respondent Information Form with your response, so that we know how to handle it.

3.1

Community Right to Request Rights in Relation to Property

Please read Part 1 of the draft Bill (Annex C pages 1 to 9) before you answer these questions:

Q1 Do you agree with the definition of community body at section 1?

Yes No Do you have any changes to suggest?

The definition of community body is broad and should empower a range of community groups to participate. However, the language used could make it difficult to communicate this opportunity to relevant groups. Alternatively worded guidance or easy language versions with simplified descriptions would be of benefit.

Q2 Do you agree with the list of public bodies to be covered in this Part at Schedule 1 (Annex C page 21)?

Yes No What other bodies should be added, or removed? The list of public bodies appears to be comprehensive, although consideration should be given to including the Forestry Commission and the Crown Estate.

Q3 What do you think would be reasonable timescales for dealing with requests, making an offer and concluding a contract, in relation to sections 5(6), 6(2)(c) and 6(6)?

Q4 Do you agree that community bodies should have a right of appeal to Ministers as set out in section 8?

Yes No Are there other appeal or review procedures that you feel would be more appropriate?

Q5 What form of appeal or review processes, internal or external, would be appropriate in relation to decisions made by local authorities and by Scottish Ministers?

Two options could be considered:-

(1) Appeals could be considered by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

(2) An external Independent Review Panel could be established to hear appeals. This could include an element of peer review by including Local Authority representatives on the Panel

Q6 Do you have any other comments about the wording of the draft provisions?

The 2013 CLD Regulations require CLD partners to target resources to community need. Could there be an explicit reference in the Bill recognising that supporting communities to make effective and equal use of its provisions is a need that should be taken into account in that context?

Public sector bodies should be encouraged to develop Community Asset Transfer strategies and establish a set of ground rules against which prospective transfers are identified, supported, assessed and taken forward. The process should assist communities in making appropriate choices from the range of options from full ownership to rights of management and use. Overall, the aim must for public authorities to set out a transparent framework that proactively enables and manages the transfer of assets to community organisations in order to bring about long term social, economic and environmental benefits to the community and to public services, and not merely in order to assist authorities to dispose of troublesome assets.

Q7 What costs and savings do you think would come about as a result of these draft provisions? Please be as specific as you can.

Community bodies should be able to attract resources such as Community Spaces (Big Lottery Fund) to support the development and management of community assets. There assets transfers will have the potential to reduce public sector property costs. Some of these savings will be offset by the costs of implementing the guidelines.

Many of the properties deemed suitable for transfer, having been declared surplus, will potentially not be in particularly good condition or suited to purpose. Transferring this liability to a community group may save revenue and or capital expenditure to the public purse in the short term, though in some cases there may be a scenario whereby assets will require a degree of improvement undertaken ahead of any transfer into community ownership.

Cost savings should come mainly through more effective co-production of services with communities and enabling the strengthening of community assets in order to prevent future demands on spending. There will, or should, however be additional costs in order to provide adequate support to enable community groups to take part in the process effectively and on an equal basis, including a need for community development/ community capacity building support.

3.2

Community Right to Request to Participate in Processes to Improve Outcomes of Service Delivery

Please read Part 2 of the draft Bill (Annex C pages 9 to 14) before you answer these questions:

Q8 Do you agree with the definition of community body at section 11? Yes No Do you have any changes to suggest?

The definition of community body is broad, which is beneficial in that it will empower a range of groups to participate. We need to ensure that diverse voices are heard, particularly communities of interest. That communities of interest have rights to participate should be made explicit in guidance or communications around the Bill.

Q9 Do you agree with the list of public bodies to be covered in this Part at Schedule 2 (Annex C page 21)?

Yes No What other bodies should be added, or removed?

The list of public bodies appears comprehensive

Q10 Do you agree with the description at section 13 of what a participation request by a community body to a public service authority should cover?

Yes No Is there anything you would add or remove?

The definition of ‘outcomes’ is potentially very broad. The provision could, rightly, potentially be used at many levels from e.g. influencing a city-wide service providing care to influencing provision in a neighbourhood facility. The scale and nature of the improvement processes involved would be significantly different and therefore the Bill must be worded to allow considerable flexibility in interpretation.

Mechanisms need to be established to enable communities to be more involved in the planning and delivery of public services and the identification and delivery of local solutions to issues. The right to raise issues and obtain a response is an integral part of effective engagement. The wording of this section should be such that it allows communities to be enabled to make appropriate choices from a range of options from engagement in decision making through to direct service delivery, participatory budgeting etc. It should be made clear that a right to request participation in ‘delivering outcomes’ can include a request to be involved in how services are designed, delivered and evaluated.

Q11 Do you agree with the criteria at section 15 that a public service authority should use when deciding whether to agree or refuse a participation request?

Yes No

Are there any other criteria that should be considered?

We have reservations about how much scope there will be for flexibility in interpreting these when, for example the requests relate to changes at very local and community levels or when the primary aim is to influence delivery of a service. Again, considerable flexibility in interpretation will be needed, along with opportunities for learning by and support to all those involved in the process, including those in the public services.

Q12 Do you have any other comments about the wording of the draft provisions?

Ideally we should work for a system where participation in outcomes is offered without the need for formal requests. Arriving at this situation will require offering potential users of these provisions the opportunity to participate in learning and community development processes.

Q13 What costs and savings do you think would come about as a result of these draft provisions? Please be as specific as you can.

Cost savings should come mainly through more effective co-production of services with communities and strengthening of the role of communities in preventing social and economic harm.

There will, or should, however be additional costs in order to provide adequate support to enable community groups to take part in the process effectively and on an equal basis, including a need for community development/ community capacity building support. 3.3

Increasing Transparency about Common Good

Please read Part 3 of the draft Bill (Annex C pages 14 to 16) before you answer this question:

Q14 Do you think the draft provisions will meet our goal to increase transparency about the existence, use and disposal of common good assets and to increase community involvement in decisions taken about their identification, use and disposal?

Yes No

What other measures would help to achieve that?

The introduction of a register is a positive step towards greater transparency

3.4

Defective and Dangerous Buildings – Recovery of Expenses

Please read Part 4 of the draft Bill (Annex C pages 17 to 19) before you answer these questions:

Q15 Do you agree that the cost recovery powers in relation to dangerous and defective buildings should be improved as set out in the draft Bill?

Yes No

Q16 Do you agree that the same improvements should apply to sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003?

Yes No Consultation on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

Response Questionnaire

Chapter 4 - Detailed Policy Proposals

Please make sure you also return the Respondent Information Form with your response, so that we know how to handle it.

4.1 Improve and extend Community Right to Buy

Q1 The Scottish Government proposes to extend right to buy to communities in all parts of Scotland, where the Scottish Government is satisfied that it is in the public interest. Do you agree with this proposal? Yes No

Are there any additional measures that would help our proposals for a streamlined community right to buy to apply across Scotland?

Extension of Scottish Land Fund to urban areas.

Change in language to ensure that communities are aware that ‘land’ includes buildings and other interest in land.

Q2 Do you think that Ministers should have the power to extend “registrable” land” to cover land that is currently not included as “registrable land”? Yes No

What other land should also be considered as being “registrable”?

Registrable land should be defined as widely as possible and should include land along coasts, foreshores and structures such as piers and harbours.

Transparency is crucial. The reasons why any area of land may not be classed as registrable should be explained. Q3 Do you think that there should be a compulsory power for communities to buy neglected or abandoned land in certain circumstances? Yes No What should these circumstances be?

Powers should apply to urban privately owned land or buildings. Such areas or buildings often blight communities and their quality of life.

Asset transfer needs to be demonstrably in the public interest, where all attempts to improve its stewardship have been pursued and failed.

Q4 How do you think this should work in practice? How do you think that the terms “neglected” and “abandoned” should be defined?

The register of vacant and derelict land currently exists. Consistency in approach and definition is required to ensure that this assessment of condition works in practice.

However, from a community group perspective, a set of principles may be more important than strict definitions. Many communities have issues with ‘absentee’ owners who allow properties to become derelict, or who buy tracts of land for ‘future development potential’ and leave it unattended, in some cases for decades.

Q5 Do you think that the criteria to be met by a community body in section 38(1) of the Act are appropriate? Yes No

Do you think that there should be additional criteria? Please set out what changes or additions should be made to the criteria.

The legal identity of any community group is very important and a strong governance structure is essential. Just because a group has a charitable purpose does not mean it is capable of owning and managing assets, although the ‘purpose’ of why any group wants to own community assets is crucial to any application

Any purchase must include very clearly defined conditions limiting subsequent disposal.

Q6 Do you think that the information that is included in the Register of Community Interests in Land is appropriate? Yes No If not, what should that information include?

Q7 How could the application form to register a community interest in land be altered to make it easier to complete (eg, should there be a word limit on the answers to particular questions)?

Use of plain English is essential.

Should the questions be more specifically directed to the requirements of sections 36(2) and 38(1) of the Act? Yes No Do you have any other suggestions?

Q8 Do you agree that communities should be able to apply to register an interest in land in cases where land unexpectedly comes on the market and they have not considered using the community right to buy? Yes No

If so, what changes should be made to section 39 to ensure that such communities can apply to register a community interest in land?

The terms of section 39 are clear that a community body would require to justify why such a registration is now required. Due care needs to be given to the definition of “land unexpectedly comes on to the market”. There needs to be a balance between the disposal of any land, especially by commercial bodies and the interest in the land from communities.

To avoid excessive use of such ‘prior registration’, especially in an urban context, it may be desirable to introduce a procedure allowing a community group to register a general interest in a certain class of premises, following which ‘late’ registration would be permissible for premises in that class.

Q9 Do you agree that the process to re-register a community interest should be a re-confirmation of a community interest in land? Yes No Q10 Do you think that the community body should be asked to show that its application is (1) still relevant, (2) has the support of its “community”, and that (3) granting it is in the public interest? Yes No

A full demonstration of community support may not be necessary on every such occasion.

Q11 What do you think should be the length of the statutory period for completing the right to buy, taking into account both the interests of the landowner and the community body? Please explain the reasons for your proposal.

From a community perspective the 6 months’ timescale in some cases might be tight. Having a prescribed timescale with the option of an extension period with the consent of both parties would be desirable.

Q12 Do you think that some of the tasks within the right to buy (such as valuation, ballot etc) should be rearranged and the timescales for their completion changed in order to make the best use of the time available within the right to buy? Please set out what changes you think should be made and why.

The statutory period should be to complete the sale, the ballot and valuation exercise should be completed ahead of this period.

Q13 Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should organise the undertaking of a community body’s ballot and pay its costs.? Yes No If you disagree, please provide your reasons.

Q14 Should Scottish Ministers notify the ballot result to the landowner? Yes No Please explain your reasons.

Transparency is essential. Q15 Do you think Ministers should develop a pro-forma for community bodies to set out their plans for the sustainable development of land and community? Yes No Please give reasons for your view.

This would streamline the process, ensuring that all plans are considered consistently and fairly. Guidance should be produced alongside the pro- forma and steps should be taken to ensure that plain English is used.

Q16 Do you agree that community bodies should be able to define their “community” in a more flexible way by the use of either postcodes, settlement areas, localities of settlements, and electoral wards, or a mixture of these, as appropriate?

Yes. There may be a greater need in an urban context to set out the need to consider the needs or wishes of neighbouring areas.

Q17 Are there any other ways that a “community” could be defined?

Some feel strongly that ‘communities of interest’ should be given rights under these proposals. Such community groups can clearly be legitimate owners of land and assets. It may be that they should be allowed to register an interest, but a procedure to check broader local support may be required as part of the decision making process.

Q18 Do you agree that other legal entities in addition to the company limited by guarantee should be able to apply to use the community right to buy provisions? Yes No

Q19 Do you agree that SCIOs should be able to apply under the provisions? Yes No

Q20 What other legal entities should be able to apply under the community right to buy provisions – and why?

Other types of entity applicable to Social Enterprises, Community Development Trusts and RSLs.

Q21 Do you agree that Ministers should only have to “approve” the changes to Articles of Association for community bodies that are actively seeking to use or are using the community right to buy? Yes No

Q22 Do you think that the length of a registered interest in land should remain as five years or be changed? If it should be changed, how long should it be – and what are your reasons for making that change?

Q23 Do you agree that the valuation procedure should include counter representations by the landowner and community body? Yes No If you disagree, please give your reasons for your decision.

Q24 Do you think that there should be a provision to deter landowners from taking the land off the market after they have triggered the right to buy? Yes No Please explain your reasons.

They should be required to meet all the costs that the community group have incurred

Q25 Do you think that there should there be greater flexibility in a community body’s level of support for a right to buy in the ballot result than is currently permitted? Yes No

Q26 Do you think that the ballot result should focus on a sufficient amount of support to justify the community support to proceed with the right to buy the land? Yes No

If yes, please explain how secured community support should be measured

There may need to be flexibility in applying turnout rules, taking into account timing, the likely accuracy of the local electoral register etc.

A ballot is only one method of assessing support for the community body’s bid to buy land. Other qualitative measures of assessment should be explored e.g. through on-going community consultation and engagement. Q27 Do you agree that community bodies should be able to submit evidence to Ministers in support of their ballot result where they believe that their ballot has been affected by circumstances outwith their control? Yes No

Q28 Do you think that Scottish Ministers should be able to ask community bodies for additional information relating to their right to buy “application” which Ministers would then take into account in considering their right to buy “application”? Yes No Please explain your reasons.

Q29 Do you think that Ministers should be able to accept an application to register a community interest in land which is subject to an option agreement (on part or all of the land)? Yes No

Q30 If there is an option agreement in place, do you think that the landowner should be able to transfer the land as an exempt transfer while there is a registered interest over that land? Yes No Please explain your answer.

Q31 Do you think that the prohibition on the landowner from taking steps to market or transfer the land to another party should apply from the day after the day on which Ministers issue the prohibition letter rather than the day when the owner/heritable creditor receives the notice? Yes No Please explain your answer.

Q32 Do you agree that public holidays should be excluded from the statutory timescales to register a community interest in land and the right to buy? Yes No

Q33 Do you agree that where a landowner makes an “exempt” transfer, this should be notified to Scottish Ministers? Yes No If you disagree, please provide reasons for your decision. Q34 Do you agree that community bodies and landowners should notify Scottish Ministers of any changes to their contact details (including any registered office)? Yes No

Q35 Do you think that Ministers should monitor the impact of the community right to buy? Yes No How do you think that monitoring should be undertaken and what information should Ministers seek?

A register of Community Rights to Buy could be created with a narrative on progress included. There should also be opportunities to highlight examples of good practice.

Should the monitoring process be a statutory requirement, including provisions for reporting? Yes No

4.2 Strengthening Community Planning

Q36 What are your views on our proposals for requiring a CPP to be established in each local authority area, and for amending the core statutory underpinning for community planning to place stronger emphasis on delivering better outcomes??

This is a simple approach to confirm the practice which is already uniform across Scotland. It is entirely appropriate that Community Planning is more outcome focused given that this is the ultimate objective for local authority areas and Scotland as a whole.

Q37 What are your views on the core duties for CPPs set out above, and in particular the proposal that CPPs must develop and ensure delivery of a shared plan for outcomes (i.e., something similar to a Single Outcome Agreement) in the CPP area?

The list fails to give Community Planning Partnerships any overall responsibility for supporting community empowerment in its area, through co-ordinating the community development work and community engagement processes of partners. It refers only to ‘consulting’ and ‘engaging’, and only in the context of identifying and prioritising outcomes.

Q38 Do the proposed duties of the CPP support effective community engagement and the involvement of the third and business sectors? Yes No

What other changes may be required to make this more effective?

The requirement that each CPP should consult and engage with communities is again to be welcomed, however, further guidance may be required to ensure that engagement is properly planned, resourced and integrated across partners. There is a need for a clear statement, agreed across each Partnership, of responsibilities for delivering community engagement, expressing a commitment to engagement that applies both jointly and severally to the partners demonstrating how the National Standards for Community Engagement will be applied, and providing accountability for engagement at the same level as the Key Performance Indicators for services.

A co-ordinated approach to community engagement is necessary (expressed through such a statement). This must look at how to involve communities in key themes and the delivery of outcomes – not just shared consultation timetables. There must be flexibility and innovation in the approach to offering opportunities for dialogue with groups of people who might not otherwise take part – including young people.

A clear link is needed to a strategy for meeting Community Learning and Development needs. The need for community development support, including community capacity building services, is arguably one of the needs that will be assessed when strategies are drawn up under the Community Learning and Development (Scotland) Regulations 2013. However it would be preferable if the Bill could explicitly state that support to enable community empowerment is a need that must be taken into account in terms of those Regulations.

Q39 How can we ensure that all relevant partners play a full role in community planning and the delivery of improved outcomes in each CPP area? Do the proposed core duties achieve that? Yes No What else might be required?

To ensure follow through on the collective duties for Community Planning, it may of value to make explicit the duty for individual partners to reduce inequalities and increase the focus on prevention.

Q40 What are the respective roles of local elected politicians, non-executive board members and officers in community planning and should this be clarified through the legislation?

The key question is, who determines if community planning is happening effectively or if it is good enough. If this is to be solely local elected members and non-executive board members, this should be written into guidance relating to their role and also influence the appointment of NHS non-executive board members. A statutory role for community representatives would be an important recognition of the vital role which communities play in delivering outcomes on behalf of their communities often alongside community planning partners but also as the intended recipients of the improved outcomes delivered. Some thought should be given to the identification of community representatives and how they can effectively speak for the entire population.

Q41 Should the duty on individual bodies apply to a defined list of public bodies – if so, which ones? Or should we seek to take a more expansive approach which covers the public sector more generally?

It may be appropriate for third sector interfaces to be given a right and a duty.to participates in community planning partnerships.

Q42 Local authorities are currently responsible for initiating, facilitating and maintaining community planning. How might the legislation best capture the community leadership role of Councils without the CPP being perceived as an extension of the local authority?

Q43 How can the external scrutiny regime and the roles of organisations such as the Accounts Commission and Auditor General support the proposed changes? Does this require changes to their powers or functions?

While the Accounts Commission process can be only examine a small number of community planning partnerships each year, the lessons to be learned from the strengths and weaknesses identified in various localities should be shared swiftly and effectively across all CPPs along with recommendations and guidance which would inform further improvement in their performance. Accountability for self-evaluation needs to be built into the process, in line with existing Best Value principles. The expectation that auditing and assessing the impact of engagement should be carried out with the involvement of the communities concerned should be strengthened.

Community Planning Partnerships need to demonstrate clearly how they have taken account of the Strategic Guidance for Community Learning and Development and have embedded planning for CLD in their processes.

Q44 What other legislative changes are needed to strengthen community planning?

4.3 Allotments

Q45 Do you agree with the proposed definition of an allotment site and allotment plot? Yes No How else would you suggest they be defined?

Q46 In order to include all existing allotments in the new legislation they must fit within the size range. What is the minimum and maximum size of one allotment plot in your area/site?

Q47 Do you agree with the proposed duty to provide allotments? Yes No Are there any changes you would make?

Do you agree with the level of the trigger point, ie that a local authority must make provision for allotments once the waiting list reaches 15 people? Yes No

Q48 Do you prefer the target Option A, B or C and why? Are there any other target options you wish to be considered here? Do you agree with the level of the targets?

Q49 Do you agree with the proposed list of local authority duties and powers? Yes No Would you make any changes to the list?

Q50 Do you think the areas regarding termination of allotment tenancies listed should be set out in legislation or determined by the local authority at a local level?

Legislation Determined by local authority

Q51 Are there any other areas you feel should apply to private allotments?

Q52 Do you agree that surplus produce may be sold? Yes No If you disagree, what are your reasons?

Q53 Do you agree with the proposed list of subjects to be governed by Regulations? Yes No Would you make any changes to the lists? Consultation on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

Response Questionnaire

Chapter 5 – Wider Policy Proposals

Please make sure you also return the Respondent Information Form with your response, so that we know how to handle it.

5.1 Scotland Performs – embedding the outcomes approach in legislation.

Q1 We invite your views on the proposal to include in the Bill a provision that places a duty on Ministers to develop, consult on and publish a set of outcomes that describe their long term, strategic objectives for Scotland, and include a complementary duty to report regularly and publicly progress towards these outcomes.

The proposals are welcome and should complement the duties placed on the community planning partners and will ensure that there is strategic alignment between national and local priorities.

5.2 Subsidiarity and local decision-making

Q2 Given the actions that the Government and others already take to enable and support local democracy, together with the additional measures proposed in this consultation, are there any other actions we could take to reflect local democracy principles that would benefit communities?

There should be a binding definition of the relationship between local and national government –one that devolves power and resources to local government, coupled with clearer definitions of what services are genuinely subject to meaningful influence at the community level.

Duties on all public bodies should be raised to the standards of the best practice enshrined in existing individual legislative provisions, in order to provide a clear, understandable right to involvement in decision making on public services, budgets and plans.

The ‘schemes of establishment’ for Community Councils should be made much more flexible, for example sometimes enabling other community anchor organisations to fulfil existing Community Council roles; perhaps these schemes should be integrated into an overall community engagement plan. This could then clarify the different representative and participatory roles that various bodies play, offer funding and support, and require adherence to standards, including the need to address inequalities and discrimination. Consultation on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

Response Questionnaire

Chapter 6: Assessing Impact

Please read the draft Bill provisions and detailed policy proposals before you answer these questions. You do not need to answer all the questions in this questionnaire, only answer the questions that you have an interest in. Separate questionnaires are provided for each chapter of the consultation paper.

Please make sure you also return the Respondent Information Form with your response, so that we know how to handle it.

Equality

Q1 Please tell us about any potential impacts, either positive or negative, you feel any of the proposals for the Bill may have on particular groups of people, with reference to the “protected characteristics” under the Equality Act 2010.

The implementation of the Bill’s proposals at a local level will require robust equality impact assessments to identify and overcome any barriers, identify and implement actions that will promote protected communities’ inclusion and participation in the processes of outcome improvement and asset management or ownership.

Q2 What differences might there be in the impact of the Bill on communities with different levels of advantage or deprivation? How can we make sure that all communities can access the benefits of these proposals?

The experience of communities in areas of multiple deprivation may be restricted in relation to complex processes such as the transfer of assets and participating in outcome improvement processes. Properly resourced support will be crucial to ensure that such communities can access and experience the full benefits of the opportunities which the bill is creating. Such support will be most effective if can be delivered using an asset building/co-production approach.

People with communication, physical and sensory issues will require additional resources to fully participate in these processes. Those tasked with the implementation of the programme must ensure that all delivery agencies are aware of their Duty under the Equality Act 2010 and that due regard is given in meeting the needs of all communities. This will require adequate resources to be made available to community groups to support equality of access e.g. communication supports, accessible buildings etc. and an awareness amongst public services of how to engage protected groups, and all disadvantaged groups, in developing an inclusive approach. Business and Regulation

Q3 Please tell us about any potential costs or savings that may occur as a result of the proposals for the Bill, and any increase or reduction in the burden of regulation for any sector. Please be as specific as possible.

Extension or transfer of ownership of properties may involve increased workload for the public sector in supporting community groups initially through the bid process, although longer term capital and revenue savings may be generated from the transfer of surplus properties, and the establishment of alternative service delivery vehicles providing services previously provided directly by local authorities.

There will however be an ongoing need to provide support and learning opportunities to the groups who have made successful Participation or Asset Transfer Requests.

Environmental

Q4 Please tell us about any potential impacts, either positive or negative, you feel any of the proposals for the Bill may have on the environment.

If community groups can acquire assets then they may be able to access funds for property/environmental improvements otherwise denied to local authorities. The converse also applies in that a community group may not have the resources to maintain an asset in an environmentally friendly fashion, which may leave the asset without sufficient environmental protection. Consequently, ongoing support to ensure the sustainability of any community group acquiring assets is vital.