‘Big Society – what does it mean for the church?’ A report of the day conference held on 19th January 2011 for church leaders across London The speakers: Andrew Stunell, OBE, MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Communities and Local Government, whose responsibilities include community cohesion, faiths and Big Society Jon Cruddas, MP for Dagenham and Rainham Debra Allcock Tyler, Chief Executive of the Directory for Social Change, whose vision is of an independent voluntary sector at the heart of social change Tim Bissett, Chief Executive of the Church Urban Fund Richard Farnell, Professor of Neighbourhood Regeneration at Coventry University and Canon Theologian of Coventry Cathedral Contents: Introduction by Terry Drummond p.3 Report Summary p.4 Andrew Stunell p.5 Jon Cruddas p.6 Debra Allcock Tyler p.7 Richard Farnell p.8 Tim Bissett p.9 Points raised in plenary discussion p.9 Cafe consultation findings p.10 Action outcomes identified p. 19 The Minister, Andrew Stunell, addresses the conference. Zedakah wishes to thank particularly Richard Farnell, who devised the consultation questions and led the first plenary discussion, the cafe consultation facilitators, Angus Anderson who supplied extensive notes for this report, and John Beaumont who managed the administration of the event. All photos: David Grimwood Terry Drummond, on behalf of Mission in London.s Economy, the London Churches Group and the Diocese of Southwark Public Policy Group, commissioned David Grimwood, of Zedakah to arrange a conference on 19th January 2011 for church leaders in London. The purpose was to consider together the impact of the Big Society, to discern whether it offers new opportunities to churches: for practical action in our communities and neighbourhoods; for mission and transformation; and to identify action outcomes. This report summarizes the contributions offered during the day, and potential action outcomes for churches in London. The concept of the Big Society is one that seems to have either captured the imagination or is seen to be a euphemism and a cover for cuts to budgets of Local Authorities and Third Sector organisations. Like all big ideas it seems that the interpretation of what it means is open to anyone who wants to comment. The January 19th conference was conceived to be an opportunity for the churches in London to give serious thought to both the concept and what it might mean for the work of the church and organisations that are either a part of its wider ministry or working in partnership with pan-London and local Christian groups. The speakers offered key insights into the issues that were discussed in detail as the day went on. The challenge that was most clearly articulated was the importance of ensuring that whatever the outcome of the wider debates, the concept of Big Society does offer a way of communities working together for the common good. The impact of budget cuts cannot be underestimated and must be challenged, but it is of equal importance that we all need to work together to build a society that is based on an equitable sharing of resources. The challenge is for all those involved in the debate to keep an open mind and enter into a dialogue, not of the deaf, but of those who are prepared to listen and work together. The conference met all its aims and more, and the discussions that are covered in this report show that the challenge of interpreting what the Big Society can mean on the ground was discussed in depth. The issues of budget cuts with their knock-on effect for the community and voluntary sector was recognised as being an area that needs serious consideration to ensure that the most vulnerable in society are not cut off from services. The need for clarity on what are the most appropriate type of services within communities is a challenge that must be faced by all those who are responsible for services and the funding bodies. A key issue for the churches in this debate is the importance of theological reflection on what kind of society we want to be part of. The Big Society may in essence be what we believe we have been working to create, but this must not become a cliché for saying we are an example of what is expected. We do have a long history of service but the Big Society will only be brought into existence if we can develop and build new alliances that cross both religious and political boundaries. In this report there is material that will assist in furthering the debate. While on the one hand we are told that the concept of Big Society is dead, and on the other it is alive and being developed, we need to ensure that we contribute to the debate as critical friends. We need to ensure that the vision of the common good which is so central to Christian faith is reflected in the creation of the Big Society that will also be a „Good Society.. Terry Drummond, Chair of the Conference ‘Big Society – what does it mean for the church?’ Andrew Stunell, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Communities and Local Government acknowledged the positive contribution churches and faith groups make to community flourishing. He asked for help in identifying the barriers that prevent local people engaging in their neighbourhoods. He specifically invited churches, communities and government to work together. Jon Cruddas, MP for Dagenham and Rainham, welcomed the Big Society moving political attention to concepts of service and justice, but worried about the negative impact on them of cuts in support for local services and welfare. Debra Allcock Tyler, Directory for Social Change, challenged the churches and faith groups to build on their long-term involvement and hold firm to their values, rather than fitting round the government.s agenda. „We want to hear about love, faith and hope, and demonstrate trust backed up with action.. Tim Bissett, Church Urban Fund, called for attention to gathering evidence of need so that our shared objectives can be delivered at the local level. Richard Farnell drew attention to the relationship between the Big Society and the public spending cuts. He noted that church initiatives remain independent, energised by belief, open to cautious collaboration. Participants then worked on a series of questions prepared by Richard Farnell, rooting the speakers. contributions in their local experience. Themes and insights that emerged included: Inequality: concerns were expressed that the poorest and most vulnerable communities will suffer the impact of spending cuts to services and benefits, but will also will be unable to take advantage of Big Society opportunities. Competition: devolving power to local communities will lead to competition between communities and between charities. The loss of strategic planning threatens flourishing communities. Responsibility: while localism is offering rights to local people, those rights need to be exercised with responsibility. Capacity: churches need to be realistic about the resources we have available to us, yet there are ways of engaging with and shaping the changing nature of our communities and decision-making. Confidence in our faith: we need to engage with the political agenda, but hold our faith values, promoting their importance so that politicians hear our stories and actions. Action: these reflections led to a number of possible actions to be taken by churches, to enable a response to the Big Society reflecting the faith values and experience of churches grounded in London.s communities. ‘Big Society – what does it mean for the church?’ Summary Report On 19th January 2011, a day conference was convened on behalf of Mission in London.s Economy, London Churches Group and Southwark Diocese Public Policy Group. The event was reported in The Tablet on 29th January 2011. The conference called for churches to respond positively to the opportunities emerging from the Big Society while holding firm to their values of faith and justice. In the morning, participants heard from the speakers. The afternoon was given to table discussions focused on recent developments offered by the Government, with appropriate faith responses. Andrew Stunell opened the conference by pointing out that although Big Society is a new label, it restates long standing core values for Liberal Democrats. Many communities are and have been Big Society for a long time. Same opportunities The Coalition Government is not claiming that there has been no Big Society, but wants to ensure every neighbourhood has the same opportunity. The Localism Bill will bring about the biggest ever transfer of power out of Whitehall to local government and communities. Localised decision making implies both responsibility and capacity. Many communities have struggled, and are not flourishing. Faith, especially Christian faith, fills the gap in „underperforming communities., providing buildings and people. The approach of faith communities is outward looking, looking for engagement with the community, and community activists are very often drawn from churches. Removing barriers Central government is not always the problem. We have to ask ourselves: „What actually are the barriers and presumed rules that stop us doing what we want to do that makes sense in our local setting?.. Mr. Stunell asked: „What are the barriers stopping you?. He invited people to let him know and his Department would see what could be done to remove unnecessary red tape or legislation that projects currently face, which are likely to be common among all faith-based community projects. Sharing resources The Minister felt that we have to get out of „collective bubbles., meaning the departmental and professional silos that are too often driven by „this is not our idea. and that actively prevent us from working collectively together and from sharing experience. When we look around, we often discover somebody else is working in the same area. There is a lot of scope for working together for effective communities, as we often want to solve the same problems. The key issue is how to galvanise and focus the core assets in any community. Can we do more to share practice, resources, buildings and volunteers? Churches as catalysts Churches and other religious establishments do a huge amount to improve neighbourhoods and support vulnerable people. They often have a better reach into communities than other organisations, with strong networks on the ground and a significant presence at the heart of their neighbourhood. This means they are often best placed to bring local people together - of any religious or cultural background - and work with them to achieve common goals. Cuts The Mininster felt that he needed to confront the argument that Big Society is about masking cuts. The current gap between public costs and income stands at £150bn, and the Coalition Government is dealing with that. But it is also launching the transfer of power and devolution. In the discussion that followed, Mr.Stunell pointed out that the scale of the reduction in local government settlement needs to be kept in perspective. The range of cuts varies in the first year from 1.2% to a maximum of 8.9%. No Local Authority should be cutting the Third Sector by more than their particular settlement rate. In response to a question about housing benefit, he recognised there are major issues involved, and the issue is still very much in review and under consultation. Fairness is a key issue and there has to be some link between the absolute levels of what the state is able to fund any individual. Best placed to bring people together Jon Cruddas began with three points. The Big Society could be the new big idea and terrain of political debate, declaring himself a big fan. Secondly, his own Irish Catholic working-class background led to a sense of obligation, contribution and duty, a deep communitarian disposition and religious sentiment. Thirdly, the „loss and absence of cheap housing raised key issues off the government radar.. State versus the ordinary Big Society is really a Labour idea that should have been introduced by his government at a time of plenty. Instead, Labour in power became increasingly statist and centralist, moving away from community development. Jon referred to Raymond Williams, academic writer of the New Left, and the importance of „politics grounded in the ordinary.. The Big Society could address this by being the cornerstone of the new politics, the new centre ground. Rapid changes His practical experience as MP for Barking and Dagenham revealed the changes underway in our society have been of such a scale, and occurred so quickly, that they have been out of view of the state. The changes have been created by the influx of people which has transformed the character of the area, in demography, colour and particularly housing, and put pressure on affordable owned and socially rented housing. He noted that the church has been „front and centre. in navigating people through these extreme changes. Faith based communities have been fundamental in holding the community together. Release of virtue Mr. Cruddas recommended Jesse Norman.s new book „The Big Society., and noted that Labour is now talking about the „Good Society.. We should be moving away from the „desiccated materialism of neo-liberal consumerism., with its empty view of humanity. Big Society emphasises the recent lack of warmth in the public sector, and returns to the understanding of what is our common life; not our separate and self centred identities, but a renewed understanding of Socrates. prescription about the „release of virtue. rather than materialism, to underpin the notions of duty, obligation and service. Just priorities How do we create just institutions? More and more people, and intermediary bodies, are struggling, and the safety net is being withdrawn. Where are our priorities – welfare or banks? Mr. Cruddas disagreed with the Minister about the spending cuts, declaring that the axe will make Big Society less achievable. Hidden ideology He respected the government for its radical policy, but in the present context of recession, uncertain employment and public service cuts, he expressed concern about the impact on the ground, and wondered whether this is a vehicle for unfinished Thatcherite business. The most vulnerable are likely to be affected the most and dispossessed, such as with the use of words like „scroungers.. New centre ground in politics Challenging stereotypes In response to questions, Mr. Cruddas worried about housing as a key issue. The local private rented market has established an „arm lock. around the way the market works and consequently government housing policy has failed, and with it consequential impacts upon public health and education. We need to conduct the debate free from stereotypes. A very few feckless families do exist, but they are a tiny minority in the growing numbers of ordinary hard working families that are under real strain. They are seeking ever more urgent help and support in the MP.s surgery, from the churches and elsewhere. It is seen in increasing numbers of people with mental health problems. People feel they are being cut adrift, and the demonization of those with real problems, will make the situation very much worse. Debra Allcock Tyler noted that the Big Society is a concept not a proposal, and unlike poverty there is no way of seeing it once it is there. How does the Big Society avoid becoming the middle class watchword for „do gooding.? Staying true One difficulty if the Big Society is to play a major role is that the Government.s austerity programme means cuts are made to grants for the very organisations that could deliver the Big Society. But this could also be a silver lining for voluntary, charity and faith-based organisations. Where the sector has gone off course over recent years is in seeking to deliver a political agenda. Recipients of government money often lose their independent voice. „We need to get our voice back, carry on doing what we have been doing well and stay true to what we do. The politicians have just taken our idea.. Language traps There are real traps in the language in which this is all conducted, so we make real not illusory changes. The issue has to go beyond changes of badge. We need to be careful to avoid knee-jerk reactions, particularly of cynicism to politicians in general (though a few might deserve it). Respectful consideration The changes necessary require real leadership. Whilst we may agree or disagree with particular prescriptions, values really do lie at the heart of it and we need to have a debate based on respectful consideration, not fevered prejudice. We need to be thinking of creating the Big Society as an internalised cultural norm (like queuing). In practical terms, „it is about taking responsibility, asking what you can give and how you can share.. Finding a true voice The real challenge of the Big Society is not its vagueness, but that its creation is competing with government spending cuts. But when the money stops, the thinking must start and faith groups can find their true voice and overcome their lack of confidence. „If ever there is a time when we can take the agenda, this is it. We give more bang for our buck than government or business. We have little to learn from them, other than often how not to do something.. This is the time to shape the agenda Knowing people by name Jargon can distort our thinking and action. An example is when „giving. is described as „investment., as though we will expect a return. Would not the „transaction. narrative be much better expressed in terms of „inspiring., being about the way that participants are enabled? We have also to think how the „beneficiary. has simply become „the customer.. The language of business refers to consumers of services, but we know them by their names. The keys to the roles of the community sector are love, hope and charity, founded on trust. People not processes In the discussion Ms Tyler said the issues to be addressed are not about price, but about people. Appropriate funding is necessary to deliver the holistic solutions that the Third Sector is there to provide. This means we should be placing much greater emphasis on grants rather than departmental silo „services. through procurement processes. Public Sector funders have resorted to bureaucratic approaches to procurement, deconstructing real life needs in a search for „evidence. that is simply a means of avoiding the issue, which she described as EBO („evidence of the bloody obvious.), giving family support as an example. Richard Farnell considered that if the Big Society is abstracted from the context of cuts, there is a great deal to be built upon: mutuality, volunteering and neighbouring. Core needs are actually plural and interrelated, requiring us to relate solutions to the nature of causes. Research into faith-based social action has revealed networks of inter-personal care, welfare services, partnerships and awareness of the need to address power and politics. Church initiatives are characterised by organisational independence, motivated by belief, with a willingness to collaborate hedged with a resistance to co-option. What lens do we use? Big Society of course cannot be abstracted from the context, which determines its meaning and significance. Through what lens do we view the Big Society? Dr. Farnell suggested inequality, individualism and consumerism. Aspirations towards the Big Society seem frail compared with the dominance of neo-liberalism, and its emphasis on the primacy of individual solutions, consumption and consumerism, and the abandonment of communal obligation. Good news of the Kingdom Against this, we should set our belief in the nature of the church, which includes good news of the Kingdom coming and God.s will being done. „Faith in the City., published 25 years ago, presented the „grave and fundamental injustice. perceived in the Urban Priority Areas of the early 1980s and condoned by „comfortable Britain.. Since then, globalisation, migration, gentrification and economic growth has produced a much more complex context – economy and politics has moved on. Our challenge How can we work against the „grave and fundamental injustice. that we now see in 2011? Grave & fundamental injustice Tim Bisset noted that the Big Society is a values-led policy invitation, a prospective marriage between the Public and Third Sectors. He summarised it as something old: things we have always done; something new: being alive to the new challenges and new ways of doing things; something borrowed: learning from each other; and something.... Churches have to develop effective understanding of the nature of risk as against recklessness. There are real issues about avoiding bureaucracy. While stories are good, evidence is better, and provides a much stronger foundation for pursuing our shared objectives of liberation, hope and love. The key issues are building services around understanding of the relational impact of need and intended outcomes, and a focus on the grass roots for delivery. Hard times Justice is relatively easy to promote when we are economically comfortable. The current economic situation appears to offer no choice, but there are choices about the effects on the poor. How will the Big Society deal with the increasing numbers of homeless and vulnerable and disabled people? How local is local? Who determines how big or small, place related or virtual a community can be? The Government sees the local authorities as „local., but „local. means a neighbourhood, where we know people by name. Empowering people may lead to conflict, and an empowered neighbourhood may be in conflict with the Local Authority. Changing landscape We are in a transition process, and the Big Society landscape will change. There has to be demonstrable social justice delivered through the Big Society. Competition Competitive tendering is not competitive because the rules exclude the Third Sector from participating. There is tension between sources of money, between grants for social action and grants for mission. Hidden agenda People are cynical and increasingly alive to political hidden agenda. For example, when originally introduced Sunday trading was to be implemented on the basis of the voluntary participation of shop workers, though in practice this has become compulsory. Hard pressed A difficulty for implementing the Big Society is the lack of consistency and stability as people are increasingly mobile. More and more people are being denied the opportunity to take part in the Big Society through pressure on their jobs and a fall in basic household income. Volunteering We may score well with volunteering, but not with engaging with the centres of power. There needs to be further changes in the law, such as relating to union action, as the issues are around class and power. Even so , where is the channel or voice for volunteering? How do any of us become volunteers? How do I choose something that will suit me, obtain the appropriate training and navigate the CRB / clearance process? A preliminary answer offered was to contact the local Council for Voluntary Service. A plenary discussion followed the speakers, during the following points were raised in buzz groups: We live in an unequal society. Whose interest do you prioritise? What is our understanding of equal? What does it look like? Why? Who are the poor? How do you have a preference for the poor? We prioritise the interests of those who are being de-humanised and alienated in retaining the truth of our bias to the poor, such as refugees in our area who are a large group and in need of support. But how do we do it in practice? Ask the privileged what they are willing to give? Too much is expected from the institutional church while in reality the church is declining. How do we deliver? The clue to the answer may lie in the experience of many multicultural urban churches in London, where all of the social issues and problems that we refer to in society or in the community exist in one congregation. We can.t talk about prophecy unless we talk about the details and the injustice of what should be changed. Identifying priorities can cause tensions between the church community and the local community around the church. The tension between wider society.s expectation and local aspirations leaves the church „ in the middle. and unsure how to appeal to either. The invitation is to co-operate with government in meeting social need because ‘we are all in this together’. Followers of Christ are called to be ‘salt and light’. How might prophetic roles be actioned? We are not in this together. I am not a Tory Etonian rich person who has been a part of this agenda. In inviting us to co- operate, surely the government needs to join us in fulfilling the needs of society, and helping it grow and flourish. A relationship with people in power is different from co-operating with them. How do we avoid being co-opted? A middle place is the place for the prophetic voice. The group considered the nature of being prophetic. It is about bringing a vision of God into a place where there is no vision, discerning what is important in this place today and what God wants, focusing on justice locally. This might be about understanding the levers of the „poor. – money, spiritual, emotional. Being prophetic means working within united church understanding of nature, faith and order, to which we are beholden for what resources we can deploy. Yet currently, values are propagated and received from celebrities, and the elements of local community, Local Authority and God, are missing in the scheme of the Big Society. In bringing change, and in bringing salt and light to any particular neighbourhood, it may be that God (rather than the devil) is in the detail; it takes time and energy to find out how to change things and to do it. One clear action outcome is to respond to Andrew Stunell.s question about who or what is stopping us from doing what is needed by identifying them and telling the Government. We need to make a list and begin a dialogue with „governments.. In the afternoon, participants were invited to join a table group for thirty minutes, with time to work on three of the seven tables. Each table had two questions, prepared by Richard Farnell, one of which identified a major government theme, the second calling for theologically informed actions. The views expressed and recorded are not all necessarily consensual, but reflect individual responses and reflections. Table 1 was facilitated by Barry Goodwin. Table 2 was facilitated by Chris Price. The narrative of neo-liberal economic management dominates political and, indeed, public thinking. Should this be challenged? If so how? The simple answer is „yes.! It was suggested that „neo-liberal economics. resisted being „managed.. Most wealth is held by the few, and the benefits of .trickle down. economics are not proven. However a range of views were expressed about how to challenge this: . Pure free trade does not happen; . We need to promote fair trade in the UK; . Should we tax people more? . Is the State well managed? - Is it better managed in the USA? While some felt that there was inequality of access to the Big Society, another view was that you can do „localism. whether rich or poor, but the challenge is whether it can be done together. Social media are challenging neo-liberal economics, as they allow small organisations to act like big organisations. Student protests, for example, were an expression of the Big Society.While online campaigning will become more predominant, we need to identify what levers of power need to be developed by churches. It was felt that the Big Society discussion has been about the cuts, not about the Big Society, but there is a concern about protecting the vulnerable. John Lewis provides a model, but ensuring the happiness of members of a cooperative or partnership is a challenge. The market needs to be built on a moral basis, and not on the needs of the individual, as community values must be held to be important. How to challenge called for engagement with the Government to be ongoing not just at elections. It requires using time smartly to effect change where we can. What theological reflections help to develop thinking and action in relation to ‘the cuts’ and Big Society? As Christians, we exist for the whole world, and so the church should reach out and not just maintain itself. Three theological insights were noted: . Paul and his understanding of the „body of Christ. . The Trinity, and the relational activity between Father, Son and Holy Spirit . And the story of Paul, Silas and the jailer. Table 3 was facilitated by Jack Maple. On what assumptions does the rhetoric of the Big Society depend? „We are all in this together., but the reality is that the impact of inequality will pull us apart. Another assumption is that there is a shared sense of what „big. means, which can refer to an exciting vision or to something oppressive and overwhelming. Similarly it assumes a shared sense of what „society. means, but it is not clear whether that is an alternative to the state or to local neighbourhoods. There appears to be no agreement about who are citizens of the Big Society. There is at least a recognition that interaction of individuals creates a reality we call „society.. We do not depend on the state to organise or define the concept of „society.. In fact, social and community groups should not be co-opted into government agenda, nor be drawn into a stakeholder society, great society, social contract and other constructs. At the moment, we are all consumers, customers with rights, consumers of public services. The rhetoric gives insufficient attention to the responsibilities we would have to take on both in delivering services, and in taking part (such as in the role of trustees) in their management. The rhetoric assumes we all start from the same place, a level playing field. However many of our new enterprises, such as free schools, are being founded in wealthier areas. What about the disparity between wealth and poverty? It also poses difficulties for those less able to „work the machinery., such as those already impoverished and under stress. The rhetoric depends on the notion of united society, without divisions and conflicts. This is a total myth. Or is it simply a reaction against statism? The rhetoric reveals the infantilising agenda of government action being devolved to Public Sector. Likewise, vetting infantilises society. The safeguarding agenda has gone too far and assumes automatic distrust. Criminal Record Bureau checks may even be unlawful. There was a feeling from some that there is either less or no need at all for professionalism in community and voluntary activities The Big Society concept is predicated on middle class experiences of volunteering. It assumes that there are unlimited numbers of volunteers, and that volunteering happens without resources, training, empowerment and so on. It raises the question: „Who is concerned to offer a service such as a free school to a poorer area even if they themselves might not benefit?. Does everything need to change? In considering current circumstances, including aspirations for the Big Society, which Biblical stories challenge both government and church? A number of passages were suggested. Exodus tells of the Israelites in slavery who had to build bricks without straw, but they were a people needing help and liberation. The story of the widow.s mite challenges the church and supports the Big Society. The prodigal son was destitute but this was not the result of unjust structures. For his father, justice was not the issue. He offered mercy and love. This is a lesson for all „sides. in the Big Society discussions. The warning from 1 Corinthians is centred on sharing the Lord.s Supper, both rich and poor together. The overarching biblical narrative speaks of love, acceptance and forgiveness. All are valued. There should be no sense of being worthy or unworthy. Table 4 was facilitated by Tim Scott The Coalition intends to sort out public finances over the lifetime of this parliament by making spending cuts and raising taxes in the balance of 80% - 20%. What are the implications of this? Concern was expressed over the way the Government is tackling the problem of the country.s debt, which goes against all normal rules of debt management. It is liable to “kill off the patient”. There could be no money for anybody. The economy.s ability to grow is being stifled. Asset sales are removing the structure for potential recovery. People are losing jobs, homes and benefits. Economic and fiscal policies are both stifling economic growth and personal growth. The balance of 80% cuts and 20% tax rises hits the poorest hardest, which is contrary to natural justice. The implications are a further fracturing of society into rich and poor, haves and have-nots. This is reflected in Daily Mail headlines re-opening „worthy poor and unworthy poor. divisions and reactions. ‘Faith in the City’ (1985) identified a ‘grave and fundamental injustice’. Many would argue that things are no different now, so what should the Church, churches and people of faith be doing about it? A number of suggestions were made: . The Church Urban Fund has been restricted to urban areas, but now country areas also need support; . Churches Together set up Credit Unions; . Food banks; . Campaign for people to pay their tax, closing loopholes, investigating and prosecuting fraud at all levels; . Call for higher taxes and lower cuts. The church does not have the financial resources to step into the gaps, for even those on a small scale will need large budgets. But the church can speak with one voice into the truth gap, beholden to speak out about injustice. It was noted that too few people want to understand, including those close to power. Financial poverty is not the only way of being poor. The demography for urban areas has changed since 1985. Economic injustices are repeated on a global scale. The need now is for churches to learn how to do more sophisticated community development work. Table 5 was facilitated by Stephen Sichel. Who is going to suffer most because of the cuts in welfare spending and in Local Government budgets? The poor will be hit the hardest because they will have to pay for extra services, like the „Emergency Bell Service. in care homes for the elderly. Poor people will suffer most, and the safety net needs to be there. The buying power of the poor will reduce, and debt, which is worst for the poorest, will climb. This leads to depression and stress, and increased business for bookies, pawnbrokers and pay-day loans – the outlets are already multiplying in inner urban areas. The poorest will suffer most, but the whole system has problems. The poorest will be hurt most, but all will suffer materially and socially. A long list emerged of those who will suffer most: disabled people, children, families, the unskilled, asylum seekers, the low paid, the old and the young, and the 8 million benefit claimants. It was felt that the cuts will affect families and lead to family splits. Housing is a key issue in London. The impact of the housing benefit cap and reduction of local housing allowance affects 70,000 households in London alone. It was felt to be simply not just that a newcomer to London can be put up in a big flat when a low paid person can.t afford a house in Barking. The concern was about the human cost, such as the loss of dignity that comes with unemployment. Of course, the Public Sector itself will suffer, along with Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians. The question ignores the possible „positivenss. of the Big Society, which could kick start engagement with society. On the other hand, „Big. means nothing, and it should be the „Just. Society. The proponents of Big Society want to see more social action, volunteering and mutual support. What opportunities and dangers does this offer the church? The rich are doing this to us, and we resent the wealthy promoting the Big Society. The notion that 1920s and 1930s philanthropy will come back is „sick.. There is no longer a „big. church to match the Big Society vision. It could sink the church. But the church must not be too negative. What opportunities do we have, beyond running soup kitchens? Partnership offers real opportunities, although co-option by local and national government is a danger. The Government could lift regulations on volunteers, such as Criminal Records Bureau checks. Lighter regulation would encourage people to volunteer. However pressure of work makes volunteering time difficult and limited for very many people. The volunteering capacity of churches is currently very low. What is the incentive to volunteer? The Voluntary Sector and churches could end up being pitted against Local Authorities. There is not enough training and support for churches and volunteer groups, and paid staff remain essential. We need to preach the gospel, and the Big Society will be an opportunity for the church.s witness. Table 6 was facilitated by Jane Winter Key points of the Localism Bill include: - Community right to build (homes and amenities) - Community right to buy (local assets) - Community right to challenge (holding councils to account about the delivery of services) Are these proposals welcome in principle and in practice? Localism Great concern was expressed about the removal of the strategic level, such as the Regional Spatial Strategies, which included a lot of local input leading to an agreed masterplan. Reducing everything to local factions will create local tensions and potential strife, ending up with rhetoric and no joined-up thinking. Total devolvement and a structure-less government policy will further lead to increased individualism and competition, putting a political brake on social development and community development. Despite the political rhetoric, it shifts responsibility and slows progress, pitting communities against each other. By removing strategy, we have ended up with the Localism Bill, but we are unsure of the meaning of the terminology used, who or what is involved. Introducing some form of management may overcome or remove some tensions, otherwise localism will be divisive, and its practical application will create exclusion. However some things would work, such as being able to buy milk and local produce locally. Community How are we to define community – faith, age, ethnicity? How do we determine the size or extent of a community? The Government seems to imply a definition that equates neighbourhood with community, whereas community means the real interaction of people. For example, a neighbourhood of gated houses may have little or no real interaction or community. Communities will change out of all recognition in the next ten to fifteen years due to the impact of the cuts. Right to build Building permission will be prone to NIMBY-ism, especially for social housing. Local land is often not available because it is owned by international organisations. Right to buy There is a responsibility to ensure that local assets are open to all, affordable, accessible and meet the needs of the community. The right for a community to manage a facility and what goes on in and around it, should not become constrained by an obligation to buy the asset. Right to challenge The more powerful, educated and informed communities will ensure good results for their localities, but the poorer communities will not, leading to increased inequality. The delivery of local services are often done by the private sector through tendering, and councils are limited by the terms of the contracts. The principle of private sector companies delivering public services needs to be challenged. Rights and responsibilities Any definition of community, and its rights to build, buy and challenge, is completely meaningless unless these rights are put alongside the responsibilities that go with them. Also the importance of mutual benefit is fundamental to what we do. Yet exercising rights and the related responsibilities requires resources. An example is the right and responsibility to house all people, old, young and vulnerable, in their community, and to provide amenities for ALL in the community, without offloading to other boroughs. If local amenities go, where will people meet? Practically the Bill is unworkable because of existing legislation and the ability to comply with it. A key responsibility is to build affordable homes and social housing. Private sector landlords present a big issue, and local communities need to have the ability to ensure good practice from the private sector. It was noted too that the private sector gets round listed building issues. We need to be careful not to confuse government policy with financial markets. The Prime Minister told the Pope about his desire to build a new culture of social responsibility and that ‘people of faith – including our 30,000 faith-based charities – are great architects of that new culture’. To what extent do you agree? The Prime Minister can hope.........but why should we have his permission to do the things we have always done. We are more than architects; David Cameron does not know what he is talking about. Social responsibility is not new to the faith- based charities. There are many good examples of faith-based organisations involved in social action, a mixture of denominations and faiths with social responsibility as part of expressing faith as the common factor. Some wondered whether faith groups can speak prophetically about inequity, and noted that churches are broken up by theology, a „church view. and external battering. However the churches might be strong enough to reflect a „community view.. In order to create order and action, they need to be the strongest minority voice, trusted by other faiths. A commitment to united Christian leadership must be a precursor to greater community development. How can churches help? They can influence mindsets. They deal with the local, and could bring communities together around localism issues, by acting as broker. Churches could provide safe, neutral space for discussion on building, neighbourhood and other local issues. The church needs to think about its own resources and deployment. For instance, could redundant church property be demolished so the land can be used for housing? However, should a local asset be sold to, say, a faith school, which means other local voluntary groups who have been using the building for decades are evicted? In such a case, does a, or any, faith group have a greater influence to buy? Or is the comment true that the 30,000 charities will be at each other.s throats? It was noted that when you stop being voluntary and start being a charity you give up lots of control. There is also the problem of whether the church is actually able to deliver, particularly highly specialist activities. We have to bring to bear a balance between professionalism where it is essential, and networks of broader social support, which together deliver quality and outcome as well as narrow (contractual) value for money. Professionalism is important as well-meaning „amateurs. can.t fill specialist gaps. Lasting change takes time and planning, and time to grow, and we can.t skip that phase. Lasting change cannot be imposed. Whatever else happens, and communities will change, one thing that will remain is the church. So what we do is long-term and needs to be long term, slowly building trust and capacity. We need to work more hand-in-hand for the long-term, giving opportunity and voice to wider issues, such as a report in this week.s paper (19th January 2011) about the problems facing a Kurdish charity. We have a unique opportunity if we can get the support right for people. While we may ask how far churches have the capacity to step in, the main thing is that people come together. If the church is expected to know people by name, show love, care and support, we cannot in the same breath deliver large scale „faceless. services to replace government. Table 7 was facilitated by Ben Stansfield. The Coalition is committed to reducing the size of the public sector, increasing the influence of markets and pleading with civil society (and the church) to join in the creation of the Big Society. Should the church join in? To reduce decision-making by national and local governments, and allowing the markets to make decisions, will not serve the interests of the poor. The markets serve the interests of those who have money and resources. It would be better to support decision-making by governments in which the voices of all parts of the community are represented, and thereby enable better representation of the poor and their interests. For the churches and other organizations in society to take on running the public services which the Government doesn.t want to run seems too difficult. It would be better for Christians to continue to work in government-run public services. We can relate to politicians, but as independent people working within our faiths precepts, not to a political agenda. Churches should discuss their responses. The churches are seen as non-partisan and therefore can be seen to have an important voice in the critique of the effectiveness of local and national Government in meeting needs and providing services. It takes time to bring people on board with ideas and then commit to being a volunteer. The private sector is increasingly adept at getting very good contracts from Local Authorities yet have no accountability to local communities for the services they deliver. There needs to be direct accountability, which is lacking through increasingly ineffective Local Authorities. The church should join in not only the creation of the Big Society but in shaping it through a prophetic partnership as a critical friend. We can work within the Big Society but not uncritically. This approach may require some compromises on both parts. The church is already running with the Big Society because we support charities and do a lot for our community. There is no need for the question about joining in, for some felt that churches are already part of the Big Society. The Coalition should not reduce the size of the Public Sector so dramatically, but should instead increase income tax and bring in a Tobin „Robin Hood. type tax. If we look at needs from the standpoint of those whom we are seeking to help to have more fulfilled, safer lives, what are the factors that they would describe as essential components of the services that help them? When we understand this then we can address the question of what is good value for money, and what is the best combination of bodies to put this together. Church groups and church projects are often reliant on good relationships and support from Local Authority personnel – youth and community workers, social services and so on for direct support, training, networking and problem solving. How can we enable better ecumenical projects, rather than „silo. individual churches. It would be better to tap into other churches for members with expertise in specific areas of work. Public sector money comes with strings attached, and means meeting Local Authority objectives. It would be better for churches to work on their own projects, meeting their own objectives and needs within their local area. Don.t worry too much about the Big Society but concentrate on bringing together churches to encourage them to be less siloed. We were concerned about the resources available in churches to deliver both people and funds. If the church is being asked to promote services to support vulnerable people currently funded by the state, but without that money, this is a bad thing. Empowerment and mutuality in giving and receiving lies in the relationships in the community and among young people, which can be initiated by local churches. To stay in touch with Big Society developments, here are some websites: www.thebigsociety.co.uk www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/big-society www.parliament.uk/get-involved/outreach-and-training Surveys of church social action over the last ten years have indicated that approximately 25% have received public sector grants, a proportion likely to reduce substantially. Is this good or bad? How do we do it? Volunteers Encourage and support our volunteers who are already engaged in really challenging work. Break out of silos The importance of „doing it together. in local communities, working collaboratively, not in parallel, with other faith groups as well as with the wider voluntary sector. Churches internet hub Develop our own internet hub for showing what we do, and to link us together. Define needs together Collaboration on defining needs and producing the evidence will help us bid effectively for resources. Map resources We can help ourselves by mapping and making available locally the assets such as rooms and facilities that we have in our own control, as the church.s assets are often not acknowledged. Log our action Having a means of logging the Big Society, what works, and how it works, will help us learn and pass on experience, perhaps through developing a database. Learn from experience We can learn from those already on this path, taking the first step to link with the Local Authority through signposting, and earning their trust. How do we influence it? Relate personally to our MPs Talk with our local MPs in person, in order to make an impact on their thinking and release them from their bubble. Promote the importance of faith There is nothing about, or which recognises the importance of faith, in the Localism Bill. Contribute to policy consultations Look at / contribute to the Government.s White Papers / Consultation on Housing and Public Health. Link with other regions Link up the discussion from this conference with the other streams that are starting to develop in the regions. How do we carry it forward? Be positive Whilst the key note speakers were all very positive, our discussion has been very cautious and sceptical through the rest of the day. Continue dialogue Channel our discussion to the speakers as part of a continuing dialogue. Tell our stories to make a difference We need to tell our faith stories more and more, and thereby ensure they are included in future Government thinking and papers. So what do we do about it? The day aimed to lead to practical outcomes for churches. The final brief discussion, chaired by Barry Goodwin, sought to identify possible action by churches across London The conference was arranged by Zedakah supporting faith-based organisations and projects throughout the UK. Contact David Grimwood: Suite 6, 60 Churchill Square, Kings Hill, West Malling ME19 4YU M. 07960 369681; E. d.grimwood@zedakah.co.uk; W.www.zedakah.co.uk