Lord Greaves
Main Page: Lord Greaves (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Localism Bill
Lord Greaves Excerpts
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, here we go again. I will speak also to Amendment 135A in this group. Amendment 133A challenges Clause 74(3), which states that assets that have been placed on a list of community assets will be removed after five years. This is a probing amendment. My first question is: why is it necessary to make the list temporary in this way and provide lots of extra work for the local authority? Why does an asset not remain on the list until there are good reasons for removing it, rather than being removed after an arbitrary period? Secondly, if there is to be an arbitrary period, why is it five years rather than two or 10? Thirdly, can assets be put back on the list once they have been taken off after five years? Will the procedure be the same as that for putting them on in the first place, which would seem to necessitate a lot of duplication?
Fourthly, can community organisations and parish councils propose that an asset which is due to come off the list at the end of five years should stay on? In other words, can they make a new nomination before the end of the five-year term or do they have to wait until the asset has come off the list and then make a new nomination—in which case there would be a gap between the end of the five years and the new nomination? These are straightforward questions, but they are not answered in the Bill and they are important if we are to know how the system will work.
Amendment 135A suggests that under the provision in the Bill for the appropriate authority—in England it is the Secretary of State—to change the period of five years to another length of time if he or she thinks that that would be a good idea at some time in the future, it should be possible to make different periods for different classes of assets. Why is it not possible for the local authority to make sensible decisions based on local circumstances, according to what is appropriate for a particular community asset? It will know the circumstances that relate to each asset. If there is a long-standing recreation ground that is not in council ownership—or even that is—and has been there for 50 years, having to apply every five years to put it back on the list would seem unnecessary. A village hall that might be in private or some sort of other ownership will not go away. One hopes that it will be there in five or 10 years, when the same problems will occur if the owner proposes to close it down or change its use to something else. That might also apply to a village pub or post office, and it seems that village pubs and post offices are where this legislation came from in the first place.
Why is it necessary automatically to take privately owned allotments off every five years and then put them back on? Why do all sorts of green spaces that people hope will be there for a considerable time have to come off and then be put back on? For example, burial grounds are not going to go away, although quite often there are proposals to take local burial grounds over, dig up the bodies and develop them. That is what happens in too many cases perhaps. That problem is going to be there in five, 10 or 25 years, so why cannot the local authority or even the Secretary of State allocate different periods for different classes of assets? These are practical problems and practical questions about how this legislation is going to work. It is important that we understand what the Government think about them. I beg to move.
Lord Howard of Rising
My Lords, before speaking to Amendments 134 and 135, I should declare some interests. I am a district councillor and a parish councillor, the owner of an agricultural estate which contains assets which might fall within the scope of the Act and chairman of the National Playing Fields Association.
These amendments, and other amendments in my name, were put down before the Minister deposited in the Library her paper on assets of community value. I thank her for the paper and for the helpful remarks she made when this Bill was being debated earlier in the week. I am most grateful as are, I am sure, many others in this House.
The effect of Amendments 134 and 135 would be to have included in the Bill a maximum period of five years for an asset to remain on the local authority’s register of community assets. It would stop the Secretary of State being able to extend the period without primary legislation and would thus avoid the worry and concern for the owner of the asset that the five-year period might be extended at short notice and without his or her foreknowledge.
In a property-owning democracy, such as ours, security of tenure is not just an important matter; it is, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson pointed out, fundamental to the way our society works. Anything which affects property ownership or value can have far-reaching effects for the vast majority of citizens of this country. For the Secretary of State to be able, by regulation, to extend the period of five years for an asset to be on the register will create uncertainty which will, in turn, affect value.
One of the faults of this Bill, as many of your Lordships have commented, in particular my noble friend Lord Jenkin, is that too much power is reserved for the Secretary of State to make what can be far-reaching changes. For the Secretary of State to be able to alter the length of time for an asset to be on the register without the requirement to introduce primary legislation could affect the value of any asset on the register. This will most affect the less well off, where the asset may represent virtually everything they have in the world. Owners of small shops and the other types of small businesses, at which this Bill is aimed, are not normally people of great resources. In the paper deposited in the Library, reference is made to renominating assets after a five-year period has ended. I urge the Minister to reconsider this, although if the five-year period remains in the Bill, having to take positive action for the asset to remain on the register would at least be a step in the right direction.
The value of assets is a theme to which I shall return in later amendments because there are other measures in this Bill which could cause harm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their points on this matter, to which I shall respond briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to Amendment 133A, but I think we should be referring to Amendment 133E. The amendment would remove the time limit all together. We do not think that this is a good approach because a fixed-term listing will ensure that assets do not remain on the list when they are no longer considered to be of community value.
Under Amendment 134, rather than a fixed period of five years for listing, the local authority would be able to remove the asset from the list at any time but no later than five years after listing. Amendment 135A would introduce different fixed terms for listing depending on the type of asset in question. Both amendments would have an unwelcome effect. They would make it unclear to community groups how long the listing would last and on what basis it could be brought to an end—consequently, reducing the transparency of the whole process. Under our proposals the fixed term will apply unless the site is sold in the meanwhile or the local authority changes its decision on review of the listing.
Amendment 135 would remove the power for the Government to change this period by order after the Act comes into force. We oppose this because the power will enable Parliament to review the five-year limit in the light of experience. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, suggested that this would require primary legislation but as things are in the Bill at the moment it would have to come back to Parliament without ever introducing primary legislation but on secondary legislation. We will also want to take account, for example, of the frequency with which listed assets come on to the market and how often communities wish to re-nominate assets that have changed hands.
In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, yes, after five years an asset can be put back on the list but only if it is re-nominated and again goes through the process of the local authority having to judge whether the asset still meets the definition. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, asked whether the change of the five-year period and the period that land is listed would affect sites already listed. The answer is no. A change would affect only land listed after the change.
I hope that that answers the questions and satisfies both noble Lords for at least the time being. I ask that noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful for those answers. The question in the back of my mind is the extra staffing resources that local authorities will need in order to compile and maintain these lists of community assets. I suppose the answer is that we do not know because we do not know how many nominations there will be. I suspect that in some places there will be a lot and in others there will be very few. We will find out in due course. However, on the basis of the Minister’s response, I am happy to withdraw Amendment 133E. I apologise if I got the number wrong earlier. I have not brought the right glasses for reading and I will have to get them.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I gave notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 74 stand part of the Bill. I do not intend to speak in the debate, although I note that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, would like to do so.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I rise, at last, to speak in this clause stand part debate. I shall speak to whether all the clauses in Chapter 4 of Part 4 should stand part of the Bill. In some ways I am glad that I did not get to speak on Tuesday. Our debate then and some of the statements that have just been made confirm my view that I might have a solution to everyone’s concerns.
Before I set out my position, I must first make it clear that I totally endorse the intentions behind Chapter 4. I have spent the greater part of my life trying to save community assets, as envisaged in this chapter. When I was at the Countryside Agency, we worked hard to provide funding for villages that were trying to protect and enhance their pubs, shops, sports facilities and heritage assets. On the latter, we ran the local heritage initiative for the Heritage Lottery Fund for both rural and urban communities. At the same time, the agency was one of the instigators of the Pub is the Hub movement. We also had a great scheme for encouraging the use of village facilities for multiple purposes, such as using the same room or building for everything from a hairdresser and a citizen’s advice bureau to political surgeries and Jobcentre Plus services. We also worked hard with others to persuade the Government to put £150 million a year into saving rural post offices. We were not totally successful in saving all rural post offices, of course, but we certainly helped. Ultimately, in all these things, and as is the intention behind these clauses, whether prized community assets survive depends on the oomph or activities of the community itself.
Having established, I hope, my credentials and my enthusiasm for this chapter’s intentions, I shall now explain why these clauses, as currently framed, first, will not work and, secondly, are an unnecessary nightmare of administrative red tape. First, why will they not work? On the basis that the two main community assets to be saved are probably the village shop and pub, or, in urban areas, the local shop and pub, perhaps I may use them as prime examples. I note at this point that open land used for sport or quiet recreation is already catered for by Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006, under which it can be registered as a town or village green. I put that forward tentatively because I am not an expert on the use of Section 15.
Sticking to the pub and the shop, it is important to note, first, that they are both customer-based businesses. Any interruption to their trading is tantamount to a direct hit on their sustainable future. In any period of closure, people soon develop the habit of going elsewhere for their shopping or their pint. It is surprising that even those without their own transport find alternative ways of getting what they need. More to the point, those habits soon become ingrained. There are lots of reasons why a publican or shopkeeper might want to retire. Customers may be drifting away and the business owner might be finding it hard to make ends meet. It might all be too much hard work. Believe me, running such enterprises really is hard work. There might be family reasons for moving or they might just want to retire. However, if they do want to retire, it is likely that they will want to maximise the value of their business asset. At the moment, the best way to do that is to get permission for a change of use and sell the building as domestic premises. Often, half of it will already be a house, so they try to turn it into a bigger house, or even to have two units to sell.
If, on the other hand, they want to sell their business as a going concern, that is all well and dandy and none of this is needed. If not, and particularly if the business is failing, the first thing they will do is to close the business in order to justify any change of use application. Very often the business will sit like that with the shutters closed, in my experience, for six months or a year—in some instances that I know of, considerably longer—even before an application is made. As I have already explained, that means that the business as a community asset could be snookered anyway. Of course, as far as the business owners are concerned, it is more likely that they will get their change of use because such a permission will be merely confirming a fait accompli.
I should point out that there could be as much as an extra £100,000 accruing from a successful change of use application, but the main point is that, after planning permission and building conversion, the sale of a property in this scenario—the “disposal”, as it is called in Chapter 4—is often several years down the track, by which time there is definitely no community asset to save.
If the local planning authority refuses permission—I accept that, if the property is now deemed a community asset, this is more likely—the owner will probably hang on for a year or two, maybe until the five years have elapsed, and have another go. They are probably living in the property or they can lease the living quarters for a few years. Alternatively, they might, under the new circumstances, give up and sell the business as a going concern, in which case we do not need to protect this community asset at all. If the disposal of the property, being usually six months to a year or more after the closure of the business, is used as the trigger for the moratorium to give the community a chance to galvanise itself and take appropriate action, it is already too late. To plagiarise Charles I, “The bird has already flown”. The business, as opposed to the property, already has both feet in the grave.
I accept that the focus that the Bill now gives to community assets means that the owner will know that an application for a change of use is likely to be refused and is therefore more likely than ever simply to close the business and carry on living in or letting the domestic side of the premises until the property slips off the radar as a recognisable community asset. However, the effect is the same. No trigger has been given to spark the community into action. Although, frankly, if the community is not sparked into action by the closure of the business into doing something to revive it elsewhere—perhaps by using their right to build, for example—there is probably nothing we can do to help them anyway. In any case, my point is still valid: it is very unlikely to be the disposal of the asset—I stress the word “asset”, as in that particular property—that kills the business; it is the change of use.
If all this is not bad enough, Chapter 4 as currently proposed could actually be the killer blow to the community asset when it is in no danger at all. Let us take the example of a publican or shopkeeper who dies in service. It is not unknown, as I said earlier. It is extremely hard work. The widow or executors will want to implement a quick sale in order to keep the business going, possibly for the sake of the community, but under the current proposals, they cannot do that, so the proposals could actually cause the demise of the very business that they are supposed to save. I believe that it is important to stimulate the necessary community action only when the business is actually threatened, rather than when the ownership of the property is transferred. The threat to the business really only occurs when a change of use planning application is made. It is at that stage that the community needs to take action, rather than wait for a disposal, when it is usually too late. I accept that a passive closure of the business not involving planning permission has the same effect and that this event is not covered either by my proposal or by the current Chapter 4. As I said, only the community itself will be able to take independent action to deal with that scenario.
My other point, which I shall make briefly and is similar to the points made last Tuesday by the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Jenkin, is that this chapter is a nightmare of administration and red tape. I looked at it, wondered how I could possibly put down any meaningful amendments and realised that I could not. I am sorry to be so blunt, but to me, it is totally over the top. At a time when local authorities are desperately trying to cut down on costs, they will possibly have to start new sections of administration keeping lists, and not only lists of successful community assets, but also lists of unsuccessful ones. Why on earth one needs the latter, I do not know. Like the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I should have thought that a non-appearance in the first list was enough for everyone.
My solution, which I hope is a positive suggestion, is that the Government should put a loose but meaningful description of a community asset on the face of the Bill. Then, when an application for a change of use comes into a planning department, the planning officer could inform the parish council or neighbourhood forum and all the members of his planning committee immediately—just in case they disagree with him—that he is deeming the premises to be a community asset. The community would then have, as at present, six weeks in which to express an interest which, if forthcoming, will result in a moratorium on the decision for a change of use for, say, six months or more to allow the community to galvanise itself so that it could, as it were, head off the danger at the pass. That would be a very simple but, in my view, far more effective approach than the current quicksands that we are all being sucked into. Do we really need 19 clauses and a whole wodge of regulations to achieve a very simple procedure? I think not.
I am sorry to have gone on for so long—I bet that those who were here late on Tuesday night are quite glad that I did not speak at that hour—but, as I said at the beginning, this is an important matter. I am right behind the Government in their intentions and I really want to make this work, which it definitely will not do in its current form. I know that there have been consultations, but I expect that the responses were based on what is currently proposed. I bet that few have had the temerity to say that the emperor has no clothes. Chapter 4 sounds good politically, but I do not believe that it will achieve what it is trying to do. I cannot see these provisions saving a single village shop or pub. Indeed, I can see them condemning a few to the grave—
Lord Shipley
I fully understand that the Bill does not deal with precisely that problem, but I am trying to give the community's point of view on what it worries about, such as controlling the assets that it perceives to be of community value in its area.
There is a further general issue with council-owned buildings: whether councils should have an automatic power to sell buildings that they own prior to testing community interest in running a building, such as a loss-making facility. With everyone's good intentions, I am sure that is what councils would do under the Bill. However, a register of those buildings would make councils ensure that they behaved reasonably in protecting community assets that local people might want to use. The development of community trusts and facilities whereby people in a neighbourhood can get together and form a community interest company trust is in the public interest. Put simply, there is a lot of discussion to have on the Bill between this stage and Report, but this debate is not simply about pubs and post offices. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that we have to think much more widely about what is in the public interest.
Lord Greaves
This has been a very interesting debate and I am stimulated to make one or two comments in view of what has been said. I am less sanguine than my noble friend Lord Shipley about whether this chapter of the Bill will help to do the kind of things that he has been talking about. I agree 150 per cent with what he said about the need for communities to be able to be much more active and involved, particularly over pieces of land. There are ways forward here, but they require resources and organisation. Local government can help in that area, but it is not just a matter for local government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said that some of the comments were a full-frontal attack on this part of the Bill. When I first heard about this part—indeed, when I first saw it in this telephone book of a Bill that we have—I was enthusiastic and excited about it, because I thought that someone was at last getting to grips with the problem of the loss of community resources in both rural and urban areas. The more I have looked at it and thought about it, and the more I have listened to comments here, the more I think that what is being proposed will cost money but not actually do much good at all.
Lord Patel of Bradford
I genuinely think that this stand part debate has got to the crux of many of the amendments laid before us. It has been extremely useful. It has helped us to explore and clarify many misconceptions as well as real issues. I thank the noble Baroness for laying the note in the Library and for the many meetings that she has offered to have with us. As my noble friend said, I think that we need to have a meeting with some of the groups that have lobbied us to have them round the table and have their views heard.
We agree with many things that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and others have said, especially about the bureaucracy in this chapter and the rest of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Beecham pointed out one example. Clause 81(6) states:
“In this section ‘free’ means free of charge”.
I hate to say this but I would almost be willing to let the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, have the red pen and have a go at this chapter because he could probably delete some of the nonsense and actually make it workable. That is the key to this—we endorse what the Government are trying to do in this chapter; the intentions are right. The key issue, as highlighted very clearly by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is about definitions. What is a community asset? There are different views around the country—for example, in rural areas. What we think a community asset is in Bradford clearly differs from elsewhere. It is not just about pubs and post offices but about the use of other community assets, such as land, where the community can transform these places.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked a very important question very early on in the debate about why we need this to do what we have already done in Manningham Mills in Bradford. It is a really important and symbolic step forward, which, if introduced, could effectively provide an additional mechanism for community groups to acquire their own assets, while increasing their confidence, independence and capacity to deliver valuable services in the area. This is really important. We underestimate the creativity, innovation and cost-effectiveness that exists there and this would be a mechanism that would allow organisations such as Locality, which has been working in this area for some 20 years, to work with community groups and give them support to do this. We only have to look at the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who could probably spend the next two hours telling us how to transform community assets into viable, lively and effective services.
Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The key intention and thrust behind this, in terms of supporting communities to acquire and develop assets and to turn blight into benefit by providing a training centre, community meeting space, young people’s activity or social enterprise start-up centre in disused buildings, is a real benefit. I know the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is going to ask what difference this makes but—
Lord Greaves
It is a slightly different question. I am stimulated to stand up by the mention of Manningham Mills. I remember being taken there by an auntie who lived there when I was a small lad to look at the steam engine driving the mills—an absolutely wonderful sight. I am not aware—perhaps the noble Lord or his colleague will know—who provided all the resources and finance for that scheme. As he knows, I am passionately in favour of the kind of schemes he is talking about. In general, do they not require a great deal of resources of different sorts, whether it is money or people or whatever, from either local or national government, or from other organisations of one sort or another? Without that it is very difficult indeed in such communities to achieve such schemes. This Bill does not do that.
Lord Patel of Bradford
I take on board the point the noble Lord is making but I think the Minister would agree—going back to the community right of challenge—that this is about partnership. Manningham Mills was a big partnership with Urban Splash and a number of developers, but with the community as well. It absolutely needs the community. There are small communities that can raise £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000. I have seen it happen. If they are given the opportunity, they can take over small buildings or bits of land and change them. I completely take on board the anxiety about landowners who currently allow the use of their fields for cricket facilities but may become anxious about that, and we need clarification on that. I hesitate to say that it ought to be in regulations, but we absolutely need clarification on these issues. My heart missed a beat when the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that the local cricket pitch could go. That absolutely must not happen, despite the injuries. I look for reassurance from the Minister that we can address some of the issues that noble Lords have rightly raised—they are valid points—but I hope we can trim this down to the core, where we do not lose the gem in this; which is giving that confidence and a symbolic way forward for communities to really say, “Here is an opportunity for us to get a building we have been looking at for years on the list. We are going to get together, if need be, with local private partners, and have an opportunity with this”.
Lord Greaves
I am entirely in favour, as the noble Lord is, of having partnerships with the private sector and getting spin-off from that; and indeed have experience of it. That is fine. However, the noble Lord talks about cricket pitches—he will be aware of the cricket ground at Park Avenue in Bradford, which used to be a very fine Yorkshire county cricket ground and is now just used by a local team. It must be in danger, in the future, of being developed or of no local team being able to keep up the expenditure on the large ground—all the terracing and so on. I believe it belongs to Bradford Council anyway, but how will putting that on an asset register help to save it? Surely what is required is for the project and scheme to be put together that will do something about it. They might save the football ground as well, while they are about it.
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.