Community wealth building consultation

Public sector organisations can be obliged/have a duty to implement SOME aspects of CWB as suits the needs of their local area. In particular the focus on supporting local businesses and people to ONLY link to local suppliers is unhealthy and counter-productive in encouraging the growth of these suppliers and improved earnings and careers of residents. This is particularly the case in small areas such as Clackmannanshire.

Large employers should be encouraged to adopt this.

No statutory guidance

Collaborative plans will take more effort to write and report on when scarce resources are better spent in implementing CWB actions.

Guidance will never suit every organisation, so will potentially be irrelevant or inappropriate, encouraging bad practice.

Good practice materials always useful.

Suggest that compliance is undertaken by an obligation by anchor public bodies to produce a report to SG/regional body annually.

A reconsideration of some aspects of the CWB Pillars are required. Some aspects are detrimental to small businesses, particularly in small areas. Those measures which encourage an inward focus in procurement will reduce the potential of contracts for small businesses outwith their area and associated with this a potential reluctant to seek work more widely in Scotland and elsewhere - a major constraint on their performance.

Procurement when only to local businesses does not differentiate between small and large, with decisions often taken off site for medium sized employers.

There are lots of good actions already underway. The key gap however is the translation of the guidance and good intentions into actions on the ground.

For example in the pillar to support third sector/community ownership. The lack of capacity is not helped by the provision of more advisors or advice, but requires skilled management time invested. A network of "managers" or those to set up new projects and get them operating would add great value.

A reliance on the local authority to deliver CWB plans is a constraint and an opportunity lost to encourage many organisations to adopt these principles. A stand alone CWB implementation team which operated across Scotland, gathered strong expertise, but delivered this on a focused local level would add great value.

The selection of "encouraging public kitchens, including school canteens...." seems out of place here. This is one aspect of procurement. If a more detailed approach to identify national priorities for procurement is wanted, I suggest this is considered. Immediately construction is an obvious addition, but there will be others.

I am uncertain if this requires changes to the law, but improved spending and procurement practices are essential to encourage small organisations and third sector to be able to supply. These include long term contracts, payment terms and practices to address cash flow/working capital requirements.

A fundamental flaw of the spending pillar is the restricted focus of local. For a small area, this limits the number of contracts available for businesses to bid for, when they should be encouraged to bid outwith their area, but would be disadvantaged (potentially) because of CWB activities. Linking to Scottish businesses who are small, have community benefits is more appropriate than restrict to only those in a restricted area.

In a small area where there may not be a local supplier, it would then encourage a next step of going for a large business to supply, where it is more appropriate to seek other small suppliers, who are good employers, employ from areas of deprivation etc.

It is more appropriate to stengthen the tools of Local Employability Partnerships to encourage good employment practices, employing local residents who face barriers to employment, provide training etc.

This will ensure that all employers, not just those supply anchor organisations can be encouraged to adopt such good practice.

I am uncertain what will and won't be covered by the land reform bill and what would require a law to impose, so I haven't selected an option above. However comments:
* community ownership is not of itself an objective. There are many badly run community organisations that deliver poor benefits to local residents. Ensuring it is organisations who are delivering benefits to local residents is more important than ownership structure
* use of vacant and derelict land in a productive way for the benefit of the community or residents is fundamental to this. Requiring anchor organisations to identify their own VDL and develop a plan for its development for community benefit would be of great value. This would include an obligation to discount any prices to reflect the wider community benefits generated
* the definition of community organisation should be broadened in the context of receipt of grants to purchase assets and to be eligible to purchase under certain laws (eg community land buy outs). Often these organisations have limited capacity or are formed for this purpose. The use of third sector organisations/charities with an asset lock and an obligation to operate the facility for the benefit of the local community. Using a core of professional managers, finance, staffing etc from the typically larger third sector/charity would mean that more assets could be used productively.
* I'm not certain if covered in land reform, but the obligation of owners of Vacant and Derelict Land to use their land in a productive manner should be encouraged. Without action a trigger to Compulsory Purchase could be made, which would start the process of moving the asset to community ownership. Note this is a push to start the sale process rather than wait for the owner to voluntarily sell it.
* Developer contributions should be available for community projects and community and third sector organisations should have a direct influence in what these investments should be. Not restricted to the local authority.

Again uncertain or what does and doesn't require law.

It is crucial that we separate out the benefits of these different business models (particularly employee ownership and cooperative) vs private sector on a case by case basis. It is not true that these models are better "per se", but that they can add value in some circumstances.

It is crucial that the pursuit of growth and increase profit is not lost as this will generate additional jobs for residents.

The support of social enterprises and charities as a credible, competent deliverer of services is the most important tool to delivering CWB. Without such organisations there will be limited ability to take up and deliver services locally, but most importantly these organisations have an obligation to reinvest their profits/surpluses to pursue charitable goals.

Support and capacity building of these organisations needs a major rethink. The provision of advice and advisors only works when there is an already competent team within the organisation. Training of managers only works when there is a team who are willing to invest the time and ambitious to improve and grow their organisation.

Alternative methods are required. One should be central-coordination organisations that can pull together partnerships of smaller third sector organisations to allow them to bid for larger contracts. This coordinating organisation would have the appropriate commercial and management expertise for the consortium.

Funding management of appropriate skills is often unaffordable for these organisations. Methods to subsidise salaries or to fund interim management would help greatly.

throughout this should be focused on supplier development and ensuring these businesses are better able to win contracts ANYWHERE in Scotland, not just the local area.

I'm uncertain if these need changes in law.

For third sector/charities, the need for finance will always need an injection of grant. Funding measures which include grant to set up financially sustainable activities, but without loan or equity to repay would facilitate many new third sector activities and businesses.

There will always be a need to match finance with skills and capacity of those to deliver both the bid for the funding and operate the business successfully to repay the loan/get the busienss viable. Most of these businesses are unable to afford individuals with the skills to do this role successfully. Those that are in place do not have the the skills, ability to learn or interest in taking on these managerial roles. An initiative which provided bodies, perhaps in interim management roles, to establish these businesses would add value. Such interim managers could cover more than one business, if small.

Getting local benefits/CWB embedded into pension funds, banks and others would add great value, but I would see this as encouragement only.