Highlands and Islands Greens

Scottish Greens have recently published a set of ideas for revitalising local government and local democracy.¹

The party, which has councillors in Aberdeenshire, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Midlothian and Stirling, is calling for a move towards much smaller units of government that would be able to raise the majority of their funding locally. The aim is to emulate the kind of stronger democracy other European countries such as Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands take for granted.

The Greens' ideas, launched at an event in Nairn and backed by a new report from land and governance expert Andy Wightman, are aimed at contributing to a growing debate around local democracy.²

Scottish Greens see the independence debate as an opportunity to promote wider ideas of decentralising power within Scotland and protecting the status of local government.

Key ideas include:

- Current councils broken down into municipalities serving around 20,000 people each. European municipalities average 5600 people.

- A set of larger regions to coordinate issues such as health, economic development, colleges and transport.

- A flexible 'Lego brick' model for coordinating other services between smaller units.

- Municipalities should raise at least 50% of their own revenue, up from 20% today.

- Local government should get a statutory share of national income tax.

- The status of local government should be enshrined in a written constitution for the first time.

The discussion comes at a crucial time for Scotland's communities:

- Local services are being cut because of reduced central funding and the economic downturn

- Council tax has been frozen, disempowering councils from raising revenue

- Community councils have little power or funding and coverage is patchy

- Local authorities are considering leaving umbrella body COSLA ³

- Participation in local government elections is extremely low ⁴

Fabio Villani, convenor of the Highlands & Islands branch of the Scottish Greens stated:

“Despite the best effort of local authority officers and elected members, there is a democratic deficit at the heart of local government in Scotland.”

“The recent Moray Council by-election saw three out of every four voters staying at home and taking no part in the election of a new councillor to represent Buckie. Many Forres people fear that their views will not have an impact on the final decision in the current debate about Redco Milne’s proposals affecting Forres Common Good land at Bogton.”

“The Greens have always stood for bringing power closer to the people and ensuring a renewal of democracy at all levels. Re-localising local democracy through giving more power to smaller councils would help do just that, and Andy Wightman’s report provides a great starting point for a long overdue national debate with potentially momentous local impact.”

James MacKessack-Leitch, Moray Greens Convenor added:

"As Scotland debates whether powers should shift from London to Edinburgh we should also consider how we shift control from Edinburgh to local communities. The current system is unfair and unsustainable.

"Our ideas address the clear need for change but in a measured way that is flexible and involves people rather than imposes from the centre."

"We are determined to push the issue of local democracy up the agenda and we welcome contributions from others interested in bringing power closer to the people."

Andy Wightman, author of Renewing Local Democracy in Scotland, said:

"Everywhere should have a local democratic body to take decisions on local matters. This is what our friends across the rest of Europe take for granted.

"Scotland could have regional bodies focusing on strategic functions such as transport and economic development, while communities could have meaningful democratic institutions instead of councils like Highland trying to cover an area the size of Belgium."

(Ends)

Notes

¹. The Scottish Greens' ideas can be viewed online at www.scottishgreens.org.uk/publications

². COSLA has a Commission on Strengthening Local Democracy, Scottish Labour has a Devolution Commission and a Scottish Parliament Committee has just launched a new enquiry into the future of local government.

³. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26124384

⁴. Recent by-elections and turnouts include:

Govan 20 per cent

Black Isle 28 per cent

Hamilton South 24 per cent

Yesterday, 21/01/14, members of the Moray Council Policy and Resources Committee voted to continue to explore further the risks associated with the proposal for a retail development on Common Good land in Forres, and to hold further discussions with Redco Milne. The committee also stated its commitment to consult with the people of Forres before any final decisions are taken.

Moray Greens have opposed the retail development from the outset, along with a large majority of Forres residents. Outline planning permission was granted for the proposals last year, although this in theory has no impact on whether Common Good land should be either sold or leased to developers.

“We are thoroughly disappointed with the decision made by the members of the Policy and Resources Committee today”, stated Moray Greens Convenor, James MacKessack-Leitch. “The report put in front of Councillors today had two very clear options: to give no further consideration to the proposals and halt the development once and for all; or to commission further reports, and leave the axe hanging over the heads of residents, local businesses, and Mosset Park. It is a crying shame that Councillors unanimously decided to opt for the latter.”

“To rub further salt into the wound the Committee also stated its commitment to consult with the people of Forres before any final decisions are taken, despite several consultations over the past months and years clearly showing the majority of people of Forres neither want nor need this development. Yet again Councillors are demonstrating just how in thrall they are to developers and other vested interests, and how little they appear to care for the wishes of those they represent.”

“We look forward to the meeting on this issue being held in Forres Town Hall next Thursday, 30^th January, 7.30pm, and will continue to support the people of Forres in the Battle for Bogton.”

Director of Planning and Development
The Highland Council
Glenurquhart Road
INVERNESS
IV3 5NX

Dear Sir

INNER MORAY FIRTH PROPOSED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS GREEN PARTY RESPONSE

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the report.

On behalf of my Branch, may I to congratulate all those involved in the preparation of this complex and detailed draft Plan and associated Action Plan, and also for the objective summary of responses to the previous consultation round.  The following comprises our comments on the draft Plan report, which we invite you to consider (and which we have also entered onto the on-line response facility).

Focus on existing centres

First and foremost, we very much welcome the Council’s clear theme and focus of the draft Plan on supporting and enabling the development of existing centres of population.  This is something we have previously encouraged the Council to adopt, and we are delighted our endeavours have borne fruit.

But we remain deeply concerned about the Council’s continued determination to develop East Inverness and Tornagrain – indeed we find the Council’s attitude on this intention incongruous.

As we have previously said ( and as the Council accepts by saying in para 3.10 of the draft Plan “Countering the pull of Inverness...”) the inevitable consequence will be that population and jobs will haemorrhage from across the Highland into the Corridor, so negating otherwise more welcome provisions of the Plan for developing existing communities.  Furthermore, there is no case now, nor in the foreseeable future, for new developments at East Inverness and Tornagrain – even on a ‘scaled-back’ basis – when Inverness itself is crying out for investment, and when impending cuts in defence spending are likely to have severe economic effects for Moray and Nairnshire.  It is extremely likely that a substantial number of people will travel to work in Inverness from West Moray and Nairn, negating the need for more housing East of Inverness, and these developments could compete with much-needed reinvestment there.

Rather, it is vital to retain the ‘green lung’ space between the complexes of Beechwood and those at Westhill, Stratton and Culloden.  Once designated for ‘concrete’ development, there will be no going back.  The whole area should designated as open space, of which the district park should take up the majority of land.

Inverness

District Park: We welcome the provision for a district park in East Inverness (though we note this was also a provision of the 2006 Inverness local plan!).  We (therefore) particularly welcome the Council’s intention to prepare supplementary guidance on this and other Ashton Farm-related issues, and by Summer 2014.

Inverness bus and rail stations: We are particularly disappointed with (p 33 of the Transport Appraisal) the designation of relocating the bus station nearer to the rail station as a ‘long-term aspiration’.  The Council makes much of its plans to revitalise the city-centre.  Arguably, the bus and rail stations relocation issue needs to be addressed first and as a priority, so that other redevelopment plans can be drawn up around that plan.  Putting off this key issue makes a nonsense of further discussion about city-centre redevelopment.

West and East Links: The Council makes much of its proposals for West and East Links, but as the Council knows, the business case for the West Link is very weak, and no business case at all has been made by the Council for an East Link.  If the Council is so set on a West Link, it should comprise a bridge for pedestrians and cyclists only, which would give ready access to the Bught Park/Whin Island facilities for those staying to the East of the canal and river.  The East Link proposal should be dropped entirely – there is little or no traffic demand for it, and its imposition would decimate the Beechwood and planned Aston District Park.

Rail: We would welcome a specific provision for a Beechwood/Inverness Light-Rail Shuttle and Halt to be included in the Plan.  The case for this facility is strong, and growing stronger, particularly with the recent planning application for student accommodation at Rose St.  (NB The halt would be ‘off’ the main-line, in a siding.  We would not expect main-line trains to stop at the halt).  We anticipate that the shuttle would run approx every twenty minutes.  Such provision would tie-in well with the Council’s proposals for a Park-and-Ride facility

Energy-from-waste plant provision: We very much welcome the proposals in the draft Plan to make more use of the Longman area for industrial purposes.  However, we object in the strongest possible terms – and indeed we see no reason to include – any proposal to designate any part of this area, here or elsewhere in Inverness, for an energy-from-waste facility.  There has been no prior public consultation specific to this proposal on this, a well-known controversial issue, with potential wide ranging impacts, and no business case is provided in the draft Plan.  The current text goes on to state that the Council will produce a masterplan/development brief for the area; we welcome that intention, which would comprise a useful starting point for any debate on the detailed future use of the site.

Transport:

While we welcome some of transport provisions included in the draft Plan and the Transport Appraisal, but we are disappointed that – for the areas for which the Council has sole or lead responsibility – there is such strong focus on road schemes and comparatively little in the way of specific green/active travel measures.

Cycling: We welcome the Council’s proposals for an Inverness-Fort William Cycle Route, and the Inverness-East Inverness walking/cycling route, we are disappointed that these appear to be the only two specific cycling projects proposed.  This is extremely disappointing , particularly given the Council’s green pronouncements, not least at its recent ‘Carbon Clever’ conference.  We recommend that The Council prepare a dedicated cycle/footpath network programme, at least for the main population centres in the short term, and allocate funding for this programme.

(Inverness) Park and Ride: We are very enthusiastic about the concept, and we urge the Council to introduce the scheme as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

Neil Hornsby

Campaigns Co-ordinator
Scottish Green Party – Highlands and Islands

The Coalition is very keen to claim that the recession is over and that the economy is recovering.  Why is it that most people do not feel better off? Perhaps it’s because they are not better off.  Wages have hardly risen at all.  Many people have had to take lower paid jobs or work less hours.

What have risen are:

• House prices; terrible if you are a first time buyer, positive only if you are a property trader.
• Energy prices; great if you’re an energy company or have shares in one – miserable for most other people.  High energy prices make virtually everything else more expensive.
• Food prices – the supermarkets mainly gain from this.  Farmers, particularly tenant farmers are having their margins further squeezed.  Demands on food banks have risen to epic proportions.
• The National Debt; the Coalition are very keen on the idea that they have cut the deficit but that is not at all the same thing as cutting debt.  In fact this is still continuing to rise to levels fairly similar to Greece.

The government suggests that the only way to improve the economy is to improve productivity.  There are three ways of doing this; work people harder, give them less wages or produce the same thing with fewer resources.  Most economists and politicians look only at the first two.  How would it be if we focused on the third?  We could re-use paper 20 times.  In fact it barely gets recycled once.  We could use sewage in a digester to make biogas.  We could cut the expensive energy used by our homes and businesses in half.  We could buy local food and support the local economy rather than most of the cost of our food going into transporting it round the world and virtually none going to the impoverished people who grow it.  Focusing on exports to improve an economy makes no sense.  Cutting carbon also benefits the real economy and makes it more likely that our children will still have a world worth living in.

The World Trade Organisation has just announced a deal which will reduce red tape.  You can be sure this ‘red tape’ will include such things as environmental and health protection so that multinationals can have easy access to markets.

There is a peak in production and availability of resources such as oil and fresh water yet demand continues to increase.  Only the Greens are pointing out that with this in mind the only way our economy can improve in a socially just way is to be more resource efficient.

It has been shown recently that if you give energy companies the responsibility of cutting energy use they will quickly realise that they are also cutting their future profits and try to wriggle out of it just as they have just done.  Universal insulation and energy efficiency programmes are far more effective.  That’s what the Greens have been campaigning for.

The Greens want an economy which benefits all, not just the wealthy.

Note

Further information on peak resources here: www.peakresources.org

Highlands and Islands Greens have called upon the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to investigate Ofgem’s statutory requirement, announced earlier this year [1] for energy supply companies to include standing charges in their new domestic tariff structure.

“OFT’s remit is to make markets work well for consumers, by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK,” said Anne Thomas, Secretary of the Scottish Green Party – Highlands and Islands.

“Ofgem’s statutory requirement for energy supply companies to include standing charges in their new domestic tariff structure, with its consequent discriminatory impact on smaller lower-usage gas and electricity consumer [3], is therefore a highly appropriate investigation for OFT to undertake.

Notes

1. See para 2.13 of Ofgem’s Retail Market Review (27 August 2013 https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/decisions/the_retail_market_review_-_implementation_of_simpler_tariff_choices_and_clearer_information.pdf )
2. Our approach to the OFT is part of our campaign for Ofgem to withdraw its standing charge requirement.
3. Our concerns are that while we broadly welcome the principle of simplifying tariff structures, the standing charge measure will have a discriminatory and adverse impact on millions of small-use and/or energy efficient domestic consumers, who will – in effect - be paying a higher overall unit-price for their gas and electricity than will larger-users, because any standing charge will form a larger proportion of their overall energy bill.  This means that those domestic customers who consume the most energy will have their gas and electricity costs subsidised by smaller-users – the more you consume, the more you’re subsidised by others.  The standing charge requirement is also liable to perpetuate fuel poverty and act as a potential barrier to the benefits of smart metering.