Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Patel of Bradford
Lord Patel of Bradford
It is ironic that this Bill could be the trigger to sort out Bradford Park Avenue, because a team called Wibsey Park Chapel plays on the ground and I have played for them for the last two years. The noble Lord is absolutely right that there are issues about not being able to maintain this historic ground. If it got on a list, I bet my bottom dollar a number of groups would get together in the community, get the money required and have this historic ground restored; and you would see cricket on there on a regular basis all the year round. That is a really good example and it is what would happen. At the moment it is in the hands of the Friends of Park Avenue, who feel like they are not the friends of Park Avenue when they see it is falling to bits. You are absolutely right: the cricket team is struggling to keep it going, because it does not have the funds. If it was opened up more widely, a number of other cricket clubs would get involved.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that was a good debate. We had a very long time for it, and quite a lot of it had very little to do with the centre-point of the Bill—we roamed pretty widely, near to the subject, but also away from it—but I return to the points I made when we last discussed this issue the day before yesterday. We are looking for a simple way of ensuring that local communities can have an opportunity to try to put together a business case and purchase a facility in which they have a particular interest if it comes up for sale. I shall not try to answer all the points made today, some of which will come up again later. This debate has gone right across this clause, but various amendments cover other clauses and I shall respond to them then. I shall be sympathetic to some of those amendments but not to others. As I also said last time, there is a terrible danger that I will go back over what I have said before. As noble Lords said, I have put in the discussion document, and at our previous sitting I gave a pretty good indication of the sort of areas that the Government are considering. I think that I have also given a pretty good indication that we are not closed to thinking about possible unintended consequences. Many of the speeches today raised the question of unintended consequences. I think that a number of those consequences are completely outside the scope of the Bill. We want to narrow the debate and return to the Government’s starting point which, as I said, was precisely to try to deal with situations where facilities simply vanish from the community’s sight because it cannot do anything about it.
I have taken notes throughout the debate and have to say that so many separate points have been raised that I will need an opportunity to consider them. As I said, I am happy to discuss these issues—some for the first time, some not—with noble Lords. We want this part of the Bill to be right. We want it to do what we believe it should do, and we do not want people to spend the next 10 years of their lives trying to sort out what it means and does not mean. As I said, I am happy to have more discussions about this to see how we can look at the issues further, if necessary.
Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Patel of Bradford
Lord Patel of Bradford
There is a consistent message here about making sure that local community groups take advantage of the opportunities that the Government have put forward, the emphasis being on “local”. I shall not go into this in great detail, because my noble friend Lady Thornton and my noble Bradfordian friend Lord Mawson have spoken clearly about the importance of making sure that community groups are local.
Perhaps the Minister could comment on how we define that local connection. Does it relate to the electoral register or issues? The question whether local authorities should be included on the list of those who can nominate is also interesting, though that may be covered in Clause 76(3)(b). Again, if the Minister could clarify that, it would be helpful.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, relating to representation of other groups, specifically people with disabilities, is obviously welcome. However, as community groups represent a number of minority groups, is that not the intention of the whole Bill anyway?
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cotter, on capacity, is interesting in terms of local authorities. There is a slight temptation to say to the Minister that she may want to consider placing a duty on local authorities to provide support to local groups to make sure that they have capacity.
Lord Patel of Bradford
I have just a very short point to make about the noble Lord’s amendment. One would think that it would be better to be clear about what a local authority must do rather than introduce further doubts or a lack of clarity. That has already been debated considerably today. It goes back to supporting the Government’s intention to have clarity about what must be done rather than leaving any vague options open for the possibility of any misinterpretations. It would be good if the Minister could address that issue.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it is the Government’s intention to set out a definition of an asset of community value in regulations that will require local authorities to judge whether an asset meets that definition in particular local circumstances. It seems right that there should be some pretty clear idea of what we are talking about and what is justified.
If the local authority decides that an asset meets the definition and it was proposed by a community nomination, it is required to list. There is a “must”; it must do that, if it fulfils the ambition of the legislation. I hear what my noble friend says about leaving it to the local authority to decide what is a community asset and what is not, in its terms, but if we get it right in regulations, there should be no doubt as to what it can list and what it cannot. To leave it without the definition in the Bill would create much more room for uncertainty for both the community groups and property owners and reduce the transparency of the process.
Amendment 138 would amend subsequent wording in line with the change proposed by Amendment 137. We do not accept the amendments that my noble friend has proposed, because we think that on this matter the local authority needs to have pretty well defined parameters.
Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Patel of Bradford(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, I will be very brief as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, covered many of the points succinctly. First, I thank the Minister for her intervention earlier. It was very helpful, but I think that we need to study the note in the Library. I have a feeling that this will be an iterative process. We would certainly welcome involvement in that and further meetings.
Notwithstanding the benefits that my noble friend Lady Thornton pointed out in respect of this clause to local communities and local areas, we recognise the good intentions and the thrust behind many of the amendments and the arguments that have been presented, together with carefully crafted amendments. We obviously need to look carefully at the practicalities of what this means. I can say certainly that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, struck a chord. It is clearly an issue that we need to take further and seek more clarification from the Government.
We agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in respect of the centralised delegated powers. We are completely on board with that. That issue has kept coming up throughout all the debates and needs to be looked at very carefully. As I say, I think this is going to be an iterative process. The amendments pose some very serious questions that we need to explore further, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say about that. We will certainly want to sit round the table with the Minister and others and look at this a bit more carefully.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, this has been a longer debate than we would have hoped for at this time of night. I fully accept that this is not ideal but that is how the business has gone. We could not have stopped at 9.30 pm. I kept hoping that somebody would manage to keep the debate on the previous amendments going long enough for us to stop, but that has not been possible. We have had the opportunity now to discuss the amendments pretty widely and I will speak to them as well as I can in a minute or two.
I want to say from the outset that we are looking at this all the time. I hear what has been said and where I cannot answer questions put forward by noble Lords satisfactorily, we will clearly need to make sure that by the next stage we have had the sort of discussions the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is talking about. Indeed, we have already had considerable discussions on the points made. The fact that they have come up again probably means that we have not satisfied noble Lords and we will have to try and do that and look at making revisions to the Bill before the next stages.
In my opening remarks I tried to bring this back from being a very wide problem into being quite a simple, singular matter. The purpose behind these provisions is to try and ensure that, when a valuable asset in a local community comes up for sale, the local community has a window of opportunity to see if it can get the money together to buy it. I know this is happening all over the place. There are lots of examples already of people buying their local pubs or shops to keep them from going out of business.
There are also plenty of examples of people saying, “If only we had had a bit of time, we could perhaps have done something to preserve this and protect it for our local community”, and that is what we are offering here. It is not going to be a very long time; it is just going to be a short time for people to say, “That is a valuable asset. We have already said that we like it. If it comes up for sale, we want the opportunity to see whether we can, as a community, get the money together”. What the Bill does not do is say that they can buy that facility if they cannot afford it at the price that the seller is asking. During the time that the community is putting the money together, there is nothing to stop the person selling from going through all the negotiations and discussions that they want. At the end of the day, the seller may be perfectly happy to sell whatever it is to the community, and they can do that. There is nothing in the provisions that says that they cannot sell to the community at an early stage if they want to. All we say is that there is a window of opportunity for the community to find out whether they can do something.
Most noble Lords have not seen that as being unreasonable, but there is a certain feeling of pressure and compulsion about this which really is not there. The only compulsion, if I can put it that way, is the fact that the asset has to be notified in advance as being something in which the local community is interested. That is where a list comes in.
In a village, I do not know how many pubs people can claim to have an interest in. I am not sure how many assets there will be in a town centre in which people can have an interest, but probably not a lot. I do not think we are talking about a multitude of areas on which people will want to put their finger and say, “If you are going to sell it, this is an asset that we want”. Public assets can also be listed. If a local authority decides to sell a sports ground, for example, that is an area where this provision would intervene, so that it could have an opportunity to see whether it could buy it.
I shall read very carefully what has been said and I shall make sure that my colleagues do too. We have to be able to answer more clearly than I can tonight the concerns that are being raised. I cannot say that they are not justified because I cannot narrow it down sufficiently at this stage to say categorically that this will be the situation. As regards the fears expressed by noble Lords about land assets being devalued because part of the land will have been identified as an asset, a compensation scheme will come into effect. On the point about something on a list coming up in a land search, presumably someone will say it is there anyway, but I do not know whether that will devalue it. I do not see why it should just because someone is trying to get some money together. It might delay the sale, but there will be compensation if that happens.
The fact that my noble friend Lord Moynihan spoke about the loss of sports and recreation facilities if this goes ahead, and that other noble Lords commented on the fact that landowners will be advised not to let their land be used for any community facility, is something of which we need to take cognizance. If that is what is being said, and if that is a fear, that will stretch out further as we go through the Bill. We need to take note of that and I can assure noble Lords that we will discuss it and come back on that.
I will go through the amendments. Some people will be quite happy with what I am saying and others will not be. Going through the brief on the amendments will pick up some of the points that have been raised and may explain matters better than I can at this time of night.
We do not think that Amendment 136, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, is necessary. Clause 75(1) and (2) say that there will be an indication under regulations of what will be involved. We will try to see that there is reasonable coherence about that so that when we come to the next stage it is understood as well as it can be. It will involve buildings such as pubs and local community facilities. I am not sure how much wider it will go, but we will ensure that it is well understood. I recognise that there has been pressure from noble Lords for greater certainty, including over definitions. We are very grateful to noble Lords who have raised this matter. My noble friends Lord Gardiner and Lord Cathcart raised the issue in connection with Amendment 136ZD.
Amendment 136ZD also combines a primary requirement that assets of community value have been or are promoting social well-being with a number of factors that local authorities must take into account as secondary considerations in arriving at final decisions on listing. These include relevant planning policies, the use that the nominator is proposing for the asset, evidence of community support for the nomination and the availability of other assets locally that could serve the same purpose. As I said, we will give this careful consideration and consult more on it. In doing so, we will have in mind the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that any regulations under Clause 75 should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
There has been a lot of criticism about the number of regulations laid out in the Bill. One reason is that consultation processes have gone on and are going on, and some regulation will come about as a result of those consultations to make this part of the Bill work.
Amendment 136ZBA proposes an ingenious way of addressing concerns that have been expressed on behalf of landowners who make land or buildings available for community use. This point was made very clearly by my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Gardiner. We have had a lot of discussion about this outside the House. I will take the example of a corner of an agricultural field used for the cricket club or disused clay pits to which people have access for walking. The suggestions in Amendment 136ZBA are interesting and we will give them further consideration.
We have some sympathy also with the intention behind Amendment 136ZAB, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Tope. Since the provisions are breaking new ground, we will need to learn from experience how they work. However, we will need to give further consideration to those as well.
Amendment 136ZAC would limit the power to decide whether an asset meets the definition to a local authority and no other body. The present thinking is that it will be only the local authority, as defined in Clause 91, which can exercise that power as the democratic authority. My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked why this was being laid down from the centre and why local authorities could not make up their own minds about who will be able to nominate an asset, what the asset will be and whether it will go on the list. The centre is laying down only the ground rules for this. It would be impossible to leave it to local authorities to decide what an asset is without giving them guidance as to what an asset of community value might be, and whether there are limitations about which they need to know. Of course it will be up to local authorities to decide whether a community that is looking at something will be able to deliver or whether it is just putting forward a sighting shot. They will be in charge of making sure that the community is not simply using a delaying tactic but putting forward something that has a reasonable expectation of being successful.
I made it clear in my opening statement that it is our intention through regulations to exclude types of land such as residential premises from the listing—that point was made by my noble friend Lord Moynihan—unless, for example, they are integral to a pub or shop. If you have a pub with residential accommodation attached to it, you will not just be able to list the pub if it also has residential accommodation that is being used. We cannot support the remaining exclusions.
Amendment 133D fundamentally misconstrues the purpose of the provision by proposing to replace land and buildings with businesses. It is wider than that. It will not just be confined to businesses as such, but we need to talk about how much wider it is going to go. It would be entirely inconsistent with the rest of the chapter and would effectively exclude most public assets from these provisions, since they would not be considered to be businesses, although they are crucial to the aims of the policy.
On the other hand, Amendment 136ZA would limit land of community value to publicly owned land, or land that a private owner agreed is of community value. This would in effect limit it only to publicly owned land, since most private owners would probably not agree to make their land subject to the rules of the scheme. An owner can, after all, voluntarily choose to delay a sale to give a community group time to prepare a bid if they want to. They can also sell it to the community if they want to. By effectively excluding private assets from the provisions, this amendment would exclude some of the key assets that we want to help communities to save, such as the last village shop or pub.
Amendments 136ZB and 136ZC make a different point. They seem to propose excluding land for which public access is already guaranteed under statute, or which is very unlikely to be put on sale but which is self-evidently of community value. In both cases, while listing would be unlikely to lead to any further action, there is no reason, we believe, for not allowing such land to be listed to provide for the unlikely event that it does come up for disposal.
We have another series of amendments, all based on the same theme that local authorities should be allowed to operate the scheme as they wish within some very broad parameters set out in the Bill. It is a question of balance. As I have said, we will be considering that further.
I am conscious of the many questions raised by noble Lords, not all of which I have answered either in my opening remarks, in my response to the amendments or by what I have said. However, I hope that I have covered enough of them to make noble Lords realise that my ears are wide open to this. We appreciate that this is a controversial area of the Bill, but we have been having discussions and will continue to do so to see that we end up not with unintended consequences in this Bill but with what we believe would be a valuable asset, which is to be able to ensure that local communities have an opportunity, if it arose, to take over buildings of community value if they can afford to do so.
Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Consequential Amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983) Order 2011
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Lord Patel of Bradford(13 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Patel of Bradford
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the work done in this area by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. It is sad that he is not here today.
I shall be brief because the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and my noble friend Lady Whitaker have covered some key issues. I welcome the changes in the three instruments to provide the same procedural safeguards and other rights and responsibilities to Gypsies and Travellers on local authority sites as on private sites. This is in line with the previous Government’s policies, which were aimed at increasing the number of authorised pitches and ensuring that appropriate enforcement powers were available.
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining clearly and in great detail how the current provisions provide limited protection from eviction and harassment. If these changes were not made, there would be a risk that the current problems—the continuing inequality—would be perpetuated, which would inevitably lead to an increase in the number of challenges to possession actions and associated costs. Therefore, the proposed changes should improve security of tenure for Gypsies and Travellers on local authority sites, which has to be welcomed.
I echo and add my endorsement to the issues that my noble friend and other noble Lords have raised. They are crucially important. There are two particular issues that I shall add a little more comment on, which have been clearly identified. The first is on the definitions. Under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment of Schedule 1 and Consequential Amendments) Order 2011, in Chapter 1, paragraph 1(4), the interpretation as I and other noble Lords have read it clearly says that the words “Gypsies and Travellers” mean,
“persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen, or persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such”.
Therefore, a large number of residents on local authority sites would fall outside this definition. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave the example of the Wrexham CBC v Berry case in 2003, which held that Mr Berry, who had retired on the grounds of ill health, was no longer a Gypsy in terms of the definition. The Government accepted that this was not an acceptable situation and introduced a new definition, in paragraph 15 of Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular 01/2006, so that “Gypsies and Travellers” means,
“persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, including such persons who on grounds only of their own or their family’s or dependants’ educational or health needs or old age have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently”—
again, excluding members of an organised group, and so on. It would be really helpful if the Minister could say what the situation is. Has this order been drafted wrongly and does it need redrafting, or is it associated with a previous Act in some way?
I shall not labour my second point, because the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has referred in detail to arbitration. I hope that the Minister can provide us with some reassurances, particularly on what my noble friend Lady Whitaker said about exclusion of all possession actions. That concerned me with regard to residents being able to take disputes to court when there is an arbitration agreement. As has been said, this could provide local authorities with a method for avoiding any matters going to the court by inserting an arbitration agreement. If the Minister could address that point, it would be helpful.
As the noble Baroness said, the preferred option in the consultation in 2008 was to transfer jurisdiction to the RPT, although clearly applications to terminate agreements would still be dealt with by the county courts. If the Minister could reassure us on that issue, it would be very helpful.
Overall, the new rights, which remove the current exclusion of local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites from the provisions of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and ensure that residents of authorised sites have the same protection against eviction as those living in other residential mobile homes, are to be welcomed. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide reassurance that the rights will not be limited to certain narrowly defined groups or prevent residents from taking a dispute to court if arbitration does not resolve it to their satisfaction.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have attended the Committee and for their comments. It is correct that the definition of Gypsies and Travellers was changed as a result of concerns expressed about it. However, for the purposes of the order and for it to come under the Mobile Homes Act, the definition had to revert to that provided in the 1960 Act; otherwise, Gypsies and Travellers could not have been encompassed by it. Gypsy and Traveller sites as they are defined pending commencement of Section 318 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 are excluded from the Mobile Homes Act. That is why we went back to the 1960 Act, under which they are not.
The exclusion from the 1983 Act of local authority Gypsy or Traveller sites relates to land and not to people. It is not the Gypsies who are affected by it but the sites. Gypsies and Travellers who rent pitches on private sites have agreements under the Mobile Homes Act.