Baroness Hanham
Main Page: Baroness Hanham (Conservative - Life peer)Localism Bill
Baroness Hanham Excerpts
Lord Beecham
That is presumably why there are refugees in your Lordships' House.
My amendments are designed slightly to strengthen and clarify the position in respect of those who should be included in the list. The first relates to Clause 76(2)(b)(iii), which speaks of “a person specified”. I simply suggest that we make that “person or persons”, because it is clear that an individual is not the only, or indeed the likeliest, source of a nomination. Amendment 136BZB would then add a qualification to make that person or persons,
“resident and eligible to vote in local elections of the relevant authority”.
Again, it is necessary to tie in the individual making a nomination to the local community.
Amendment 136BZC would give “the local authority” the right to make a nomination as well. That seems sensible and should be no problem to the Government.
However, an issue arises in that respect, and in other respects in this part of the Bill, about the definition of a local authority. There is a clause in the Bill which sets out the hierarchy of local authorities, counties and so on. There is also, I believe—I cannot for the moment identify it—a provision in the Bill which requires local authorities to co-operate on issues across the Bill. That leaves the question, with which the Minister might help us, of which authority in a two-tier area has the duty to compile the lists or whether it is both. Both levels of authority might have an interest, or one might have an interest and another not, in the particular function for which a nomination is made. For example, there might be some functions—recreation and so on—where a district councillor would have an interest; there might be others, in the realm, let us say, of social services, where a county authority would be more likely to have an interest. There seems to be nothing in the Bill to dictate, or even indicate, which of the two authorities should make the list, whether there should be a combined list or how it might operate in practice. It would be unfortunate, to pick up the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord True, about the cost, if both authorities were obliged to maintain lists and staff up accordingly.
I do not expect the Minister to be able to deal with these matters immediately, but could they be looked at, clarified and worked through, perhaps in consultation with the Local Government Association? The vague “duty to co-operate”, a phrase to which we will return when we come on to the planning section of the Bill, does not really take us very far.
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.
Baroness Hanham
I apologise for getting up too early. I had not realised the Front Bench was boxing and coxing and acting as supports as well as leads. We can sort out who is doing what when.
These are interesting amendments. I was very taken by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on Amendment 136A. That amendment would make eligible a community organisation operating in the local authority area to make a community nomination. We shall put down in regulations who nominations can be made by; that is, any voluntary or community body with a local connection. I shall see that that includes what the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, spoke about, because, if not, we limit what can be done. We shall consider bringing forward an amendment at a later stage if it is necessary.
The duty to co-operate is in the development and planning area. My expectation is that the duty to co-operate would continue to exist between one authority and another if something straddled the two authorities. I am making all this up as I go along, so I may have to come back to it. The communities bidding to put a facility on the list must come from the authority area in which it sits. I cannot see that stretching out unless there were two facilities in different authorities, in which case they might have to put on both.
Lord Beecham
The problem is that you have a district council within a county area, so the resident and land may be in one place geographically but there are two authorities within whose boundaries it is situated. That is the problem that I foresee.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the district would in that case maintain the list; the lower authority maintains the list. In London, it would be a borough.
Lord Beecham
Again, taking up the point of the noble Lord, Lord True, that might be quite burdensome for some districts. It is worth looking at again. Perhaps it can be discussed between now and Report.
Baroness Hanham
That is as it stands.
Amendment 136B proposes restricting those who may be specified in regulations as eligible to make community nominations. The majority of responses in the consultation which has just closed agreed with our initial proposal for groups and individuals to be eligible to make nominations. However, a large number of respondents experienced serious concerns about the risk of individuals—a point which has been made again today—and, therefore, we are sympathetic to Amendment 136B. We shall look at that issue further before Report. We will have nearly the whole Bill to come back to on Report.
Amendment 136BZA tends to assume that the term “person” in the Bill refers to an individual and has been brought forward alongside the earlier Amendment 136A. In fact, “person” is a legal term which can refer to either an individual or group of individuals forming an unincorporated body or an incorporated body such as a company. So adding “persons” does not add materially to the scope of the power to make regulations that define who can make community nominations. I shall consider whether it is sufficient for the legislation because sometimes legal definitions are totally misunderstood. It may perhaps be helpful if we consider whether it should be “person” or “persons”.
Amendment 126C would add detail to those who may be specified in regulations as being able to make a community nomination. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned two categories: first, those with a particular interest, disability or—the amendment states “advantage”, but I presume it means “disadvantage—and, secondly, people or bodies with a common right to use land because they own or occupy neighbouring property. We do not consider it necessary to specify either category. While we fully intend for the community rights to buy to be inclusive, we do not want to be too prescriptive on the kinds of organisations eligible to list land. It will be a broad list anyway and we would rather not have specific organisations on the face of the Bill.
Amendment 136BZC would add the local authority to the list of those eligible to make community nominations. We are not sure about the local authority being able to make nominations to itself because, effectively, it would have to go through the process and would have to be the promoter, the decision-maker and the final arbiter. We think it is for local community associations to make the bid and not the local authority. The tension we are talking about is better served by the existing provisions in Clause 76(3)(b), which enables regulations to be made that specify that local authorities can list assets on their own initiative, thereby avoiding pointless bureaucracy. So there is a provision there that local authorities can do this but not that they have to go through the nomination process; they can list of their own will. We have already made it clear that we intend to include this in regulations.
Amendment 139A would require a local authority, when considering a community nomination, to assess whether the nominator has the intention and the capacity to be treated as a potential bidder to buy the asset. This would make the consideration of a nomination much more burdensome and bureaucratic—a point which has been heavily laid around us today—for the local authority, requiring it to consider the merits of the nominator in addition to whether or not the asset is of community value. Such a requirement might be more appropriate where a right of first refusal is provided to the nominator subsequently. However, in a situation where the nominator will still need to compete with other potential buyers to take on the asset, such a requirement is, in our view, disproportionate because if they cannot raise the money and they have not got the financial security, they are not going to be able to bid.
With those explanations, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
I declare my interest as both chair of the Rural Coalition and chair of the National Housing Federation. I do not think the latter is particularly relevant, but it might be.
Having listened to the Minister’s response, I have a niggling concern that the Government are creating a vastly overcomplicated system for doing something very simple. Individuals and organisations in a local community ought to be able to nominate and there should be a simple process for then deciding whether it is appropriate. I am not clear why there have to be decisions by any bodies about who those nominators are. If they are local individuals or organisations, surely they should be able to put forward a nomination. If we turn it round the other way, I am not clear about who we are trying to rule out. If they are in, or active in, the community, who are we saying should not be able to put a nomination forward? If there is not an obvious group of individuals who should be excluded—and I cannot think of any—why do we have to have a decision-taking process at the local level on who should or should not be able to make such nominations? Complexity is the last thing we need because it does not empower communities. Arguments about whether or not a nomination has been made by a relevant local individual, group of individuals or organisation misses the point; the arguments should be about whether it is a suitable nomination in the first place.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the decision by the local authority would probably have to be made on only a very few occasions because it will be blindingly obvious whether or not an organisation is a community association under the terms of the Bill. It is just possible that there might be a body which no one has any idea about; a body which might have been suddenly thrown together and claims that it comes from the local community but does not, will fall outside the parameters of the Bill and it is reasonable that the local authority should be able to say, “I am sorry, you do not fulfil the requirements” and be able to turn it down. It is expected that any body which is understood to be a community body or people of the local community will find themselves nominating quite happily.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
I still find think this is overcomplex. At the point at which an organisation has nominated something within the community for this purpose, is it really worth having an argument about whether it is a community organisation or a part of the community? Would it not be easier to say whether or not it was a suitable asset? That process would surely trump any issues about who is eligible to nominate it provided that they can show they have a community connection.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we are not trying to make this overcomplicated. I am trying to simplify the local authority’s role in identifying a community body. One is trying to rule out a very large body which does not have any particular community interest but would like the asset, coming in through the back door and the local authority being unable to stop it. That is how the Bill stands. I hear what the noble Lord says.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I think she has won over the Bradfordian party in the House. We look forward to the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
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.
Lord True
I understand the point made by my noble friend the Minister, but I have some sympathy with the amendment, for reasons that she will understand from my previous interventions. I do not think that this is easy, and I look forward with interest, as many other noble Lords in this Committee will, to seeing the regulations and the guidance that her department will produce. The Minister was very receptive to that point when it was made by noble Lords two days ago and today. There are circumstances in which a local authority, using its reasonable discretion, could cut short a bureaucratic process that is pre-eminently likely to end in the rejection of a nomination. I really do not see why, taking its local circumstances into account, a local authority should not be given slightly greater freedom than is presently suggested in the Bill. I understand my noble friend’s argument and that of my noble friend Lord Howard, but in many ways I slightly move towards my noble friend Lord Howard’s because I hope that some degree of latitude and discretion will be allowed.
Lord True
I agree with the noble Lord’s point on transparency. My point is simply that, given the potential legal implications here, the process would have to be transparent in the way that a licensing process ultimately is. It would therefore be a matter of public record, properly minuted and so forth, so that setting up a separate process by legislation seems otiose.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, five of these amendments look to remove the requirements on the local authority to give reasons for its decisions in connection with the scheme, whether in favour or against. On those five amendments, Clause 77 provides that where a community nomination is unsuccessful the local authority must enter the land on the unsuccessful nominations list and give the nominator written reasons for the decision. Amendment 139 would remove that requirement of giving reasons to the nominator.
Clause 78 deals with notices about the lists. Amendment 140 would remove the requirement for the local authority to give reasons in its notice for removal of land from the list of assets of community value. Amendment 141 to Clause 79, which gives a landowner a right to review of the decision to list, would mean that the local authority would not have to give the owner the reasons for the decision it has taken following the review.
Amendment 141A also concerns the right to review in Clause 79. At present, if the local authority decides on a review to remove the land from the list of assets of community value, it must give a written copy of the reasons for the review decision to the person or body whose community nomination had previously been accepted. Amendment 141A would remove this requirement. Clause 80 concerns a list of unsuccessful nominations. Amendment 142 would remove from this clause the requirement for the local authority to include in the entry the reasons for not putting the land on the list of assets of community value.
These amendments would all remove an essential guarantee of transparency from the scheme. We of course expect local authorities to behave reasonably and tell a community organisation why its nomination was refused, or why an asset had been removed from the list. We would also expect them to tell an owner who had asked for a review of the decision on listing the reason for the decision. These are basic provisions that we consider essential for all community groups and landowners to be able to expect in every case if these measures are to be effective in giving communities real power. That is why we think it is important that these requirements are set out clearly in the Bill, and stay there.
Amendment 141B concerns what should be included in the procedural regulations for the review of listing. This also relates to Clause 79. At present, the Bill sets out matters which the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers may include in these procedural regulations. The amendment would mean that these matters must be included in the regulations. This appears to take a contradictory approach to that taken in the previous amendments, as there is a request for prescription of the process but no intention to tell the owner or the nominator of the outcome. In every case it is the Government’s intention to make procedural regulations and to ensure that they contain those details that are necessary for the effective operation of the scheme.
Finally, Amendment 140A appears to be seeking to amend Clause 79, so that where an owner requests a review of the decision to list, the time limit, if any, set for the owner to make this request is not as provided in regulations. We believe that this would be unhelpful to owners of listed land as it would create uncertainty as to how quickly they should act, and would again reduce the level of transparency. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howard of Rising
I cannot say that the explanation thrills me. What is proposed will create an immense amount of work and a very strong bias to go in a certain direction. Existing freedom of information legislation would enable the transparency to be maintained. I do not suppose that there will be any assistance from the Government in funding this work or, indeed, in creating the lists in the first place. It would be nice if the Government would consider removing this provision, thereby reducing the amount of work that will be necessary for overstretched local authorities to carry out. I might want to return to this subject later. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, this group comprises various minor and technical government amendments to improve the working of the community right-to-buy provisions. Before I go through each amendment, I wish to give a short introduction on them.
Clause 82 contains key details for giving communities the chance to bid for listed land. There are four broad aspects to consider: first, who has to do what to initiate the windows of opportunity; secondly, the identification of certain types of disposals which will be exempt from complying with the rules at all; thirdly, disposals which can be permitted within the full moratorium period; and, fourthly, the lengths of the interim and full moratorium periods—that is, the windows and the protected period.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
The Minister has not yet moved the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I have nearly finished. I apologise that I have been rather long. In fact, I have only another two lines to read.
The proposed amendment to Clause 85, Amendment 147E, would enable the regulations to include an appeal against compensation decisions under the community right-to-buy scheme. The amendment will strengthen the protection for property owners affected by the scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My question on Clause 83 has turned into a short supplementary to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. The Minister has told us that the order-making power in Clause 83(7) will be used to deal with matters of inheritance and partnership. Can she give the Committee an assurance—I am sure she can—that the order-making power will not be used to alter the principal definitions of relevant disposal, which are already contained in the Bill? As subsection (7) is set out, it could, on the face of it, actually change the 25-year term or the definition of disposal in Clause 83(2). Those are quite fundamental points.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
My Lords, I welcome much that the noble Baroness said about the Government’s willingness to look at the particular circumstances that may arise, for example, in the sale of going concerns and where the community asset is a small part of a larger concern. These issues have certainly raised great concerns, and I would like to add another.
I am not sure that I need to declare an interest but I shall do so just in case. I chair the eco-town strategic partnership in the St Austell area, a wide area of mining land which was mined formerly by English China Clays and more recently by Imerys. Over many years the policy of past and present mining companies in the china clay area has been to open large areas of land to community access, but always with the proviso that it might be worked in future. That is not a bad example of the concern that I want to put to the Minister about the deterrent effect that this policy—a policy which, broadly, I very much support—could have on landowners of that sort in opening up land to community use, whether for walking, riding, cycling and so on, if it were severely to limit their ability to sell and dispose of the land as part of the operation of their business. My fear is that, as things stand, it will simply freeze in aspic the current position on community access as people would be able to argue that access already exists and to list it. Equally, in terms of new community access, it is in the nature of mining land that the areas which may be accessed by the public will change over time depending on where the workings are and where land restoration has taken place following tipping. I can see this creating a substantial block to opening up land for future community use. The same may well apply to the farmer who very willingly allowed a corner of his land to be used by the cricket club. That usage now exists and a listing could be applied for. It could also create a substantial deterrent to any landowner opening up land for such use in future.
I am very much in favour of the idea that we should register assets of community value—which clearly applies to things like village shops, community halls and so on—but I am concerned about how to ensure that the creation of new community resources is not blocked by the fear that these elements will be applied.
I have one more question; I should already know the answer to it, and no doubt there is an answer. What is the position when the sale of land options—which are usually bought because planning permissions might be granted—in practice trumps these proposals to register community assets? I wonder whether the purchase of an option in any sense triggers this process.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Taylor, for their interventions. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, had three questions. I have the answer to two of the questions but cannot remember the other one. Would he like to ask me again, if he can remember it? If he cannot then that is fine. Perhaps we should both read Hansard. I apologise—I was getting so excited about the orders that I forgot about the next bit.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the 25-year period. The land will qualify only if the lease is granted for 25 years, rather than having 25 years left to run at the time of disposal. If it is granted for less than 25 years and is therefore subject to renewal, I suspect that it will not qualify, because the lease will have to be for 25-plus years.
Lord Beecham
I understand that and am grateful to the noble Baroness. That of course means that there is a way out for an owner. My first question was whether, assuming that the property was vacant, a legal charge would constitute a disposal. The Minister may need some legal advice about that, as indeed I may do too.
Baroness Hanham
If noble Lords know the answer to that, I shall be extremely grateful. I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that as I do not have a response.
Any orders will be affirmative, and that is also my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Under the Bill, the need to change will stay unamended. It is fair to say that at some stage there might be a requirement to change the definition. If that is the case, again it will be done through an affirmative order.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has produced the sort of conundrum that we had over private land where a small piece is taken out or is open to community use. I suspect that mining land is not part of the Bill, although I shall have to write to the noble Lord. However, if it is, I accept that what he said is very similar to what was said about the problems of small bits of land being used, through benevolence, for cricket pitches. I shall come back to that with an answer before the next stage.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we keep coming back to the same issue. I take the point that we probably need to look at the narrowing of the classification but by doing that we will still have to look at what would not be caught, which is what these amendments address. I heard the rant by my noble friend Lord Hodgson and I do not suppose for a moment that he expects me to say anything other than that we have heard what he said. I will deal with all the points raised but I should like to say from the outset that we are quite sympathetic to looking at this again.
On the government amendments, I have already said that we are sympathetic to the intention of Amendment 144A. We understand the concerns of some rural landowners who are already making their land available for periodic community use. It is certainly not our intention to discourage them from doing so. Where a listed asset forms part of a larger piece of land, we recognise that to delay the sale of the whole estate would in most cases be completely disproportionate. I am happy to confirm for the noble Lord that we will have a look at this, which complies with my previous commitment.
As set out in our consultation document, which I am sure everyone has read from cover to cover, we intend to exempt a range of different types of disposals that do not impinge on the intended aim of a policy. We have already indicated our intention to exempt disposals of land due to inheritance and gifts, and transfers between family members, in light of responsible consultations. I think that that encompassed everything put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner. But in hoping that we have a little time before the Recess and Report stage to discuss these issues, I am happy to say that we will reconsider or consider those with him and other noble Lords concerned.
Amendments 143, 143ZA and 144 would exempt the disposal of business-to-business transactions where there was no risk to the continuation of the business. Earlier, I mentioned that we understood that the use of a power might stay as the use of a power but if it was sold between two companies we would not expect that to be caught up in the community asset ability to buy.
However, we are slightly afraid that the amendments could have some unintended consequences and would create more confusion than clarity, which a number of noble Lords seem to think this is anyway. We are not sure what the terms “risk of closure” and “business” mean. We are prepared to look at these again and discuss them with noble Lords to see whether we can avoid any further unintended consequences that would impact on the aim of the policy. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those answers and for her sympathetic ear to these probing amendments. Amendment 144 is focused on business-to-business transactions. I entirely accept that the phrase “risk of closure” would not commit itself to parliamentary draftsmen but I have never known any Back-Bench Members who have ever committed themselves to parliamentary draftsmen because they always want to take it away and tidy it up. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the time to act is before the closure takes place but, once the closure has happened the business, or service, may well be doomed or its risk of failure much increased.
I am grateful to my noble friend for her positive response and look forward to returning to this matter later when we have some further thinking from the Government. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we are continuing to cover ground that we have largely covered previously, but in the interests of clarity I am quite happy to go over it again. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, we have looked at this matter, but it is important that we return to it in light of these amendments.
In considering the length of the various windows, we have taken account of responses to consultation and of the need to balance community benefit with the rights of property owners. The consultation demonstrated a broad consensus in favour of an interim window of six weeks to allow a community association to decide whether it is able to put its name forward for a bid, and a protected period of 18 months. We believe that these are the right periods.
Opinion was more divided on the length of the full window, though a majority favoured a window of a maximum of six months as opposed to 40 per cent of respondents who favoured three months; that is, less rather than more. We are minded to accept six months, as I have already said.
Amendments 145, 146, 147 and 147A propose a range of lengths—in some cases, a maximum or minimum—but all agree on the importance of providing some certainty by including reference to the chosen lengths in the Bill. We have also noted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that, if the moratorium lengths were to be set in regulations, the first exercise of the power should be subject to affirmative procedure. I also heard what my noble friends said about having assurance in the Bill. We accept that there is a case for providing greater clarity. I shall therefore come back to this matter on Report having consulted with the Welsh Government and otherwise as necessary.
We oppose Amendment 143A, which would give a right of first refusal to community interest groups where the owner of the asset concerned was a public body. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, introduced the amendment very persuasively, as she always does, but the amendment would mean that the existing government proposal would apply only to assets with private owners, including the voluntary sector.
The two schemes would need to be run in parallel, imposing greater costs and making the system more confusing for those trying to use it. Powers already exist under general disposal consent for local authorities to transfer assets to community ownership at less than the best consideration to further local social, economic and environmental well-being. We think that that would satisfy the noble Baroness’s problems.
We already intend to provide in regulation for both public and private owners to be able to sell their asset to a community group while the window of the opportunity is in operation. If there was a willing buyer and a willing seller, they could just get on with it. This would give community groups advantage over other purchasers, who would have to wait until the end of the moratorium period for a decision to be made. With those confirmatory explanations—because I think that I have given them previously—I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Greaves
Am I right in thinking that during the six-month period there is a moratorium on disposal but not on putting property or land on the market? The land could be marketed during those six months and, presumably, if it was a competitive market, the resultant price would be the price that the community group would have to cough up if it wanted to buy it.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is correct. The moratorium does not prevent property being put up for sale or marketed. All it does is to prevent the sale taking place before the community group has had an opportunity to consider whether it can match or beat what has been brought forward.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister again for repeating what she has now said three times. Indeed, I believe she gave the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, late on Tuesday evening.
I am quite pleased. I think we have made some progress and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
“Informing owner of request to be treated as bidder
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) after a local authority has received notice under section 82(2) in respect of land included in the authority’s list of assets of community value, and(b) before the end of the interim moratorium period that applies under section 82 as a result of the notice, the authority receives from a community interest group a written request (however expressed) for the group to be treated as a potential bidder in relation to the land.(2) The authority must, as soon after receiving the request as is practicable, either pass on the request to the owner of the land or inform the owner of the details of the request.
(3) In this section “community interest group” means a person who is a community interest group for the purposes of section 82(3) as a result of regulations made under section 82(6) by the appropriate authority.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I have tabled the amendment in order to discuss the role of local authorities and other public bodies—but particularly the role of local authorities—in assisting with community purchases as a result of this legislation. The amendment states that the local authority may acquire and make fit for community use any property which is the subject of these proposals; that an acquisition could be by a compulsory purchase order, with the approval of the Secretary of State in the usual way; and that the local authority could sell or let a property or a business to a community interest group, and could do so by not charging the full market value—in other words, by subsidising the purchase or the maintenance of the community asset. I think the definition of a local authority should include a parish, although I have not included it.
I am not suggesting that this proposal should lead to a large-scale acquisition by local authorities of new community assets. Given the present financial circumstances of local authorities, that is unlikely to happen anyway in most places. However, this will change. In the very nature of things there is a cycle, which many of us have seen more than once, in which local authorities, for various reasons, are more flush with money at one time than they are at others for this kind of purpose. However, being practical, in many areas the only way in which the purchase or the running of community assets that are being disposed of is going to work is through some kind of subsidy from the local authority. It may be from some other public body but it is most likely to be from the local authority. In many areas, it simply will not happen and simply will not work unless that happens.
The subsidy might be relatively modest or it might be quite substantial—or it might be a big subsidy to purchase the asset and then no subsidy, or a small one, towards the maintenance of it, or the other way round. It all depends on the circumstances. But in practice, unless there is an active interventionist policy by local authorities in areas that are not as prosperous as a few places appear to be, it is simply not going to happen. It may happen on a small scale. The noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, said earlier that communities can raise money. I agree with him. They can. But very often they will raise money as targets and as matching funding as against other grants, and so on. Therefore, it seems to me that local authorities ought to have those powers.
I may be told that, at least in the areas that do not involve subsidising a purchase or passing it on at a lower price than cost, the local authority has these powers anyway—and if they have not, they will have them under the general power of competence, and therefore this amendment is not needed. A short debate is needed on the role of local authorities in this matter and the absolutely central role that they will have to have if this is going to work in a lot of areas, and certainly the areas that I am familiar with. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we appreciate the intention of this amendment and agree that local authorities have an important role in assisting community interest groups to take on assets of community value. Indeed, the Secretary of State has announced a social responsibility deal for councils, asking them to give greater support to voluntary and community groups. However, that does not need new powers; they already exist. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary.
Local authorities already have wide powers to acquire land by compulsory purchase—for instance, to secure the proper planning of their area and grant public access to land for recreation. In June, we published revised guidance to local authorities to take seriously all viable requests from voluntary community groups put to them for the compulsory purchase of a threatened community asset. But community purchase is not a step to be taken lightly, and the local authority has to demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest that outweighs the private interests of the current owners.
The amendment goes further to suggest that local authorities be given the power to sell the acquired site to a community interest group. Local authorities already have extensive powers to dispose of land, including under the general disposal consent the power to sell land at less than market value, if it is for the social, economic and environmental benefit of the community. We therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn as it is not necessary.
Lord Greaves
I am grateful to the Minister for saying what I thought she would say—but it is important to have it on the record in relation to the system or scheme that is proposed. One problem with compulsory purchase is making the case that the interests of the wider community outweigh those of the individual who owns the property in the first place. When you have community facilities that are not being put on the market and whose owners are closing them down and refusing to consider transferring them, or are putting them on the market deliberately to be bought by people who are not going to use them for community purposes, an interventionist role for local authorities may be necessary in some cases. I am grateful for what the Minister said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord True
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for raising this matter. I referred to it in earlier remarks and I will not repeat what I said, but it would be extremely helpful for the Committee to see this, given the far-reaching potential range of the regulations—who is to pay, who is to be entitled, what it should be in respect of, the amount, the procedure, appeals and so on. That is not only from the point of view of the potential effect on landowners but, as I argued earlier, from that of local authorities. I would not expect my noble friend to answer this now.
I have now found the financial memorandum to the Bill—it is indeed £21 million which is suggested as the total cost to local authorities—where we are told that funding for these new burdens will be provided through the Secretary of State. I wonder whether that is the case. When the regulations are produced, I wonder whether my noble friend could give some estimate of what she thinks the total cost of compensation levied on local authorities might be, assuming that it is levied on local authorities. From the financial memorandum, it may be that the Secretary of State is going to produce the money. That is not clear to me but perhaps those things could be clarified when the note for which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has asked is laid before the House.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the question of regulations is not going to be in my hands. I will make sure that the request that they should be available is passed on but it is not up to me, I am afraid, to make sure that they are. I assure noble Lords that we recognise the importance of offering compensation and have said that in the consultation document.
Through the consultation we sought views on the detail of the scheme—for instance, who should be entitled to compensation, what costs could be compensated and how claims should be dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord True, asked about those matters. We are therefore sympathetic to the spirit of Amendment 147DB, but believe that it is unnecessary as we have already indicated our commitment to establishing a compensation scheme and will be making regulations to do so. I will try to ensure that we at least have sight of those.
Amendment 147EA is also not necessary because we are proposing a government amendment to add to Clause 85 the power to give a right of appeal. That would be done through regulations. This will be an additional power to give landowners the right to request an internal review by the local authority of its decision on compensation.
We consider that the proposed introduction of an external right of appeal will be more suitable than the proposal in Amendment 147EA to have the appeal referred to the district auditor, by which we presume is meant an independent auditor appointed by the Audit Commission. Their role is to check the financial—
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I apologise, the noble Lord did correct himself. However, we still believe that we have a better route than the noble Lord. We do not think that the district valuer would have a role in this. As I say, we think that that provision would be unnecessary in view of the legislation that we will be introducing.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we will have to see what happens as regards the draft regulations. I cannot say that I am persuaded by the argument that the district valuer is not the appropriate person to deal with these matters. However, we shall see precisely what the Government have in place when somebody else provides the noble Baroness with the ammunition. I hope that by Report we can have a clearer picture and possibly reach an agreement. If not, it may be a matter on which we shall have to take the opinion of the House. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham
“(vii) appeals against decisions made under the regulations.”
Baroness Hanham
“Co-operation
If different parts of any land are in different local authority areas, the local authorities concerned must co-operate with each other in carrying out functions under this Chapter in relation to the land or any part of it.”
Lord Beecham
That is what I suggested under a previous amendment, but I think the whole area needs looking at.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that was an amusing exchange. I look forward to seeing the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, taking over as Secretary of State, although I do not think that the Secretary of State would appreciate that. This exchange is about matters which I have answered briefly, although, I appreciate, not in detail.
We believe that it is important that we clearly set out who should run the community right to buy. Clause 91 defines what we mean by local authority and who will be responsible for administering the provisions. It makes sense that a decision on listing is made directly by the local democratic authority, rather than any other. For that reason, we have chosen to give powers to specified local authorities to run the scheme.
Where there is more than one local authority in an area, we have decided that, in most cases, implementation of the scheme should be by the local authority with the relevant planning powers. That would mean that, in two-tier areas, the running of the scheme would fall to the district council. However, in the case of the national parks and the Broads Authority, which have planning powers for the area but are not elected authorities, we have left administration of the scheme with the local authority as having democratic accountability. We would expect the local authority to liaise with the local national park or the Broads Authority where appropriate. We also consider it important to retain the Secretary of State's power by order, if necessary, to amend the definition of local authority in the light of experience. Amendment 147A would remove that power, so we resist it.
Amendments 147FA and 147FB would give powers to a national park authority and the Broads Authority to make decisions on what is listed and to run the scheme. National parks and the Broads Authority have members appointed by the local authorities, but they are not themselves democratically accountable local authorities, so they would fall outside the scope of the definition of local authority.
Amendment 147FZA would replace the current list in Clause 91 of what counts as a local authority for the new list. Some items are the same, but the proposed new list would allow a county council in a two-tier area to take responsibility for administering the scheme by agreement with the district council or councils. That would remove the important link between these provisions and the planning authority. The new list also omits the Common Council—the City of London—and the Council of the Islands of Scilly and deletes the Secretary of State’s power to amend the list later for England, although not the power of Welsh Ministers to do the same in Wales. For the reasons I have given, I cannot accept the amendments, and I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press them.