Smaller Government: Bigger Society?

Written evidence submitted by Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (BS 89)

1. A definition of what the ‘Big Society’ is or should be.

There is a framework that has been developed by The Countryside and Community Research Institute (CCRI) and the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) that could deliver the Big Society. It does exist. It was a process developed from one of the first landscape scale HLF partnership projects 2002 – 2007. This replicatable framework has been researched and evaluated that offers structured support to local communities that achieves multiobjective delivery from an all inclusive list of organisations working in partnership. Though this has been developed to deliver the sustainable community agenda for the rural environment – the process could work equally well to delivering any objective in any locality, urban or rural.

A summary of the research paper ‘ Inspiring and Enabling Communties – an Integrated Local Delivery model for Localism and the Environment is attached as summary document and a power point presentation.

8 key themes to the delivery model:

• Works at lowest appropriate administrative structure by land parcel;

• Clarifies an all inclusive list of statutory and non-statutory partners:

• Supports and values the local community within that land parcel;

• Facilitates (or strengthens existing) community group with the support of all organisations working in partnership to unleash social capital;

• Is structured from the local council to give sustainability;

• Fits with existing and developing cross cutting frameworks

• Enables inclusive multi objective delivery;

• Identifies complementary funding opportunities and match funding.

The framework requires facilitation of an independent third party so that the process can fit within existing structures such as Community Led planning, Neighbourhood and Local Plans and can deliver cross cutting national objectives European frameworks. The role of a sustainable community adviser job description has also been attached.

6 stage process as core

1. Once invited begin initial scoping to determine the defined administrative area, individuals and statutory frameworks relating to the land parcel.

Scoping creates a petal that identifies each asset or issue within the parish/ward; moving out to county, regional; national and international framework that is in place to help maintain, restore or improve (or needs to be delivered within) the administrative parcel.

The scoping then returns to find the local partner responsible for delivery on the ground. This is carried out for each asset or issue within the defined administrative area to create a flower.

2. Map the management tasks and verify these in an inclusive and open format.

3. Develop a management group around key local and statutory stakeholders

4. Embed linkages and local adoption of responsibilities

5. Establish capacity and local management group

6. Implement proposals and embed management group and monitor

Information exchange through the local council can help promote rural business opportunities and initiatives that benefit the administrative land parcel. I.e. it is integration between the natural, physical, cultural and socio economic opportunities that can be integrated to deliver community resilience. This fits with the development of community led plans and links the natural and farmed environment to communities to develop true resilience with issues such as local food, water, flood mitigation, green energy. This could apply to urban communties with other agendas and demonstrate a need for cooperation between communities to help each other.

2. The impact and consequences of reductions in public expenditure on the Government’s ambitions to deliver its vision for the Big Society.

The framework to deliver the Big Society outlined above can be achieved with reduced public expenditure as all the organisations work and deliver together. However, without facilitation the social capital of communties is unlikely to be released as governance is too complicated without support. Once assisted, communties can take on more with the level of support being reduced so minimising resources in the long term as the local resource delivers on behalf of authorities and agencies.

3. The role of and capacity for the voluntary and community sector to deliver local public services including the appropriateness of using charitable income or volunteer labour to subsidise costs.

Though the voluntary and community sectors can deliver public services, it is the commitment and on going accountability and need for funding that is the challenge. Local parish and ward councils need support of an independent third party to make connections within the community so that integrated cross cutting agendas can be delivered in joined up all inclusive way. By taking on public buildings, for example, with on costs is something those in positions of voluntary responsibility are nervous of. So funding or reassurance of support for on costs would be a major support for councillors/ groups to take on these commitments.

4. Possible problems and challenges from increased commissioning of public service provision from the voluntary and community sector as envisaged by the Government.

There needs to be a link between the aspirations of Big Society to the statutory duties of government departments, agencies and authorities and the delivery of Local Plans and wider strategic frameworks. There must be people within the councils; government agencies that support and guide the delivery in an integrated way – which can then be facilitated by and independent third party. It is suggested that this should be done by the establishment of Integrated Environmental Partnerships, so that all organisations can work together.

5. The right to form employee-owned public service co-operatives including the resources available to co-operatives, proposed powers, and rules governing their operation.

This would work if there was funding and support for establishment.

6. Governance and accountability issues arising out of different organisational forms of social enterprises and co-operatives; and the participation of voluntary sector and community groups in greater public service provision.

The Integrated Local Delivery model at fits within a wider framework of community led planning and delivery of Local Authority Local Plans enables a framework for delivery that is bespoke to each community within a replicatable framework.

‘Best Value’ has been an overburdensome obligation of accountability by Government bodies, but it would be important to have a comprehensive procurement framework to which is currently being developed (Procontract) by DueNorth would be important to support.

How you standardise the quality of support given by different community groups in different sectors would be more challenging, so a level of local monitoring and feedback to the local authority over performance would still have to remain.

7. The implications for central government and for the civil service of policies which require them to promote and to enable, rather than to manage and to direct, public services.

There must be an understanding that communties find the complexity of governance overwhelming and are mostly unaware of all the different EU frameworks and other national and international obligations that must be delivered by the government. It is a question of enabling people to make informed decisions, and inspire them to help deliver with the support of all organisations working in partnership. WHAT IS NEEDED IS A NEW INNOVATIVE FRAMEWORK – THAT EXISTS ABOVE – but this requires someone to facilitate it who can integrate our need to deliver or national duties, land parcel by land parcel with the support and help of each community.

These parishes and wards in turn deliver for the county Local Authority and their Local Plans and these inturn deliver the national and international obligations. IT CAN HAPPEN if anyone would listen. The problem is the Government currently doesn’t have a department for Integrated Delivery – each department DEFRA, CLG, CC, BIS etc are all working independently of each other. If they all sat around the table – adopted this integrated local delivery framework, Big Society, More for less , Joined Up Government, could all be delivered with if there was one simple fund for community facilitation that had a purpose of delivering joined up resilience community by community.

8. The place of local authorities in the transfer of power from Whitehall to communities and the role democratically elected local councillors should play.

Local Authorities feel they can take on this role as long as they have a clear overarching integrated policy framework to deliver to and funding to facilitate social capital to enable cost effective delivery.

9. Potential conflicts with other aspects of public service delivery, such as individual focus of personalised public services or universal provision and uniform standards of public services (i.e. avoiding postcode lotteries).

I have over 20 years experience delivering with communties and working with policy makers at a local, county, regional, national and international level. My experience is that you cannot give local people the suggestion that they can take control completely, because of the wider duties of cross cutting delivery government is obligated to as part of its international commitments. A process that informs, inspires and enables local people to help with that delivery in a structure way, supported by all organisations working partnership is the framework that is needed and is available is only someone from government would take it forward. This has been presented to so many different departments and been well received – but as was said – no department seems to have the authority to sign of an integrated framework – other than perhaps Mr Cameron himself.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with him and explain this framework again – it is so needed please will somebody listen

March 2011