Localism Bill

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mawson]

My Lords, I apologise for coming in and out of the debate on Tuesday and missing the key parts of the discussion. I will speak to Amendment 136A. My day on Tuesday was punctuated by meetings about the Olympics and a meeting with a Minister. However, by 11 pm on Tuesday evening I think I had managed to get a good flavour of the debate. I also apologise for being another speaker in the debate who hails from Bradford. I do not know what was being put into the school milk all those years ago up there for so many Bradfordians to be speaking in this Chamber on this subject. I was a milk monitor for a while, but it was not me who put anything in the milk.

More seriously, who decides what land or buildings are included in the list? As I have listened to this debate on the Bill there has often been an assumption that local authorities, be they in Bradford or Tower Hamlets, are in close contact on the ground with local communities, that they know what is going on and that their staff have the entrepreneurial flair and skills to spot a building or land and create an opportunity when they see it. I hear a very different message in some things I have looked at in Bradford and elsewhere. Having had 30 years of experience attempting to negotiate with local authorities, both in east London and up and down this land, I must say that this is not my experience. There is one view looking down the telescope into a local community from the offices of a local authority. There is quite a different view looking up the telescope in east London from one of the poorest housing estates in Britain.

In my experience, often local authorities are actually not in touch with the practical opportunities on the ground presented by land and buildings. Local authority staff, and sometimes the local councillors, do not always possess the skills and mindset to know what to do with these assets, which they view from a fairly traditional public sector point of view. Some local authorities are just not innovators, and some are. Some local authorities resist social entrepreneurs like me who come along and suggest a wholly new approach or point to new opportunities presented by land and buildings that challenge the status quo. Of course, there are some excellent exceptions to this rule.

As the Bill stands, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton has reminded us, the nomination of land or buildings as a community asset can be done only by a parish council, a county council or local authority. This means that, for example, the Bromley-by-Bow Centre in east London—which I founded, and of which I am now the president, so I must declare an interest—could not suggest that any land or building be included in the list. This is ridiculous. The Bromley-by-Bow Centre began 27 years ago as a small charity and has today expanded its operation such that it works closely with local residents across the whole of Poplar and beyond. We have done in practice what many contributors on the Bill have talked about. Today, what began as a small charity runs a three-acre site and has 170 staff. With local people, we have created 37 businesses and social enterprises that operate across Tower Hamlets and beyond. We built the first integrated health centre in the country that is owned by local people through a development trust, and now our doctors and their partners run four health centres in Poplar with responsibility for nearly 40,000 patients.

I also helped found the housing company Poplar HARCA, with which I do some work now and so must also declare that interest. This £300 million company has challenged the traditional logic of the housing association movement and has done a great deal of work to demonstrate how housing associations can use their capital investment in housing to trigger social and economic development with residents in a way that allows local communities to start to think very differently about how we can use both land and buildings in an innovative way. Today, the company has responsibility for nearly 10,000 housing units, operates in Poplar on an area of land that is the same size as the Olympic Park, on the opposite side of the road, and now owns 34 per cent of all the land in the area. This is a resident-led organisation. Today, Poplar HARCA, in partnership with the Bromley-by-Bow Centre and Leaside Regeneration Ltd—another interest that I must declare, as I am a director—has put together a £1 billion regeneration programme, which will have major implications for the area over the next 15 years, both for land and for buildings.

The idea that the Bromley-by-Bow Centre and Poplar HARCA, both of which are charities, should not be able to nominate land and buildings on to the list would be resisted by local residents, who have voted through a democratic process for the housing company. These charities have widespread support and are far more in touch with the opportunities for innovation on the ground than the local authority, even though we work in partnership together. What I am describing in practice is the opportunities that the Bill can present to local social enterprises and their partners if we get the detail right. I am describing what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has rightly described as the wider opportunities with which the logic of this Bill might, if the detail is right, present local communities.

With regard to the fears that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, expressed on Tuesday about large companies coming into the local area and cutting out local organisations, I understand that fear, but in practice the Bromley-by-Bow Centre has a very successful partnership with the multinational company G4S. Together, we created the first £35 million LIFT company, which has now built 10 health centres in east London. The social enterprise Green Dreams, which was founded at the Bromley-by-Bow Centre, is a landscape business that now has a contract with G4S to work on 26 school sites across Tower Hamlets. Together, social entrepreneurs and a large business are now going for large contracts that are focused on creating local jobs and skills. This has all been done in partnership with local residents. Because G4S as a company has a long-term interest in the area, as does the Bromley-by-Bow Centre, good working relationships exist on the ground. Both partners are of course constantly looking at the opportunities presented by land and buildings.

For those reasons, I suggest that this amendment should be on the face of the Bill. Local community organisations should be able to nominate both land and buildings if going local is to look like this in practice in the future. If such an amendment is not included on the face of the Bill, I fear that some local authorities will not necessarily listen to the pleading of a small but developing local charity or social enterprise that is attempting, as we have done, to grow in capacity. The danger is that the local authority will ride roughshod over the community organisation, and a small flower in a new garden, where a thousand flowers need to be allowed to bloom, will be crushed in the process. Outside this Chamber, a new world is emerging that is challenging both local authorities and the public sector, and that world is made up of organisations that are often deeply committed to the lives of local people. We need to enable this world to grow.

Finally, I must say that, in my experience, we sometimes need the intervention of the Secretary of State—not too often, but occasionally—because, without the intervention of key Ministers of State in the development of the Bromley-by-Bow Centre, we would not be where we are today. Innovation in local communities is difficult to do. I know that—I bear the scars—and sometimes you need friends in high places to help you to break through the local inertia.

This is an important amendment for charities and social enterprises across the country. I suggest that the Government should support it if they truly desire to let a thousand flowers bloom. My colleagues and I would certainly be willing to sit in a room with the Minister and her colleagues to discuss further how we might make this part of the Bill work in practice. I have certainly found my conversations with the Minister on the Bill to date very helpful.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I almost feel the need to apologise for not being a refugee from the dark satanic mills of Bradford, unlike so many other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

[Lord Greaves]

All Bradford’s problems stem from the fact that the mills all closed down quite a long time ago.

[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.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Our second amendment to Clause 82, Amendment 143ZB, ensures that it will not be possible for a new owner to get the benefit of the protected period relating to the owner from whom the land was bought. That ensures that the moratorium conditions apply afresh to a new owner if they wish to sell. The amendments proposed to Clause 83, Amendment 147B and 147C, remove the surrender of the lease as a relevant disposal for the purposes of the community right-to-buy scheme. In practice, it is often difficult to decide whether a surrender of a lease has taken place; surrenders are often determined only retrospectively in the courts. Removing the surrender of a lease from the definition of a relevant disposal avoids those difficulties in the very small number of cases where surrender may occur.

[Lord Beecham]

I have three short questions on Clause 83. The noble Baroness may not be able to answer them immediately; if not, perhaps she will write to me. First, for the purposes of subsection (2), could a charge on a property be regarded as a disposal if the property is then vacant? The second question arises under subsection (6) in respect of the qualifying leaseholders’ state, which would have to have at least 25 years to run. It strikes me that someone might grant a lease for less than that, which would take it outside the parameters of the clause, with an option for the tenant to renew it which could effectively carry it beyond 25 years. Had that been a straightforward grant, it would be within the framework. Does that need to be considered? Finally, subsection (7) gives the appropriate authority the right to amend the clause by order. As in previous debates, I would like confirmation that that would be subject to an affirmative order, as it deals with personal property rights, rather than a negative resolution.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I was intending to ask some questions on the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

147DB: Clause 85, page 67, line 34, leave out “may” and insert “must”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the Minister and I have previously exchanged amicable words about the question of compensation and it is clear that the Government have an intention to bring forward regulations. However, the Bill does not strictly require that. The purpose of this amendment is to reverse the onus. In a previous amendment the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who is not now in his place, wished to transfer “must” to “may”. In this clause, I want to do it the other way round and substitute “must” for “may”. The intention being what it is, I cannot see any difficulty in the Minister accepting this.

There are legitimate concerns, some of which we have heard today and previously, about the position of owners in relation to the possible losses that they might incur as a result of the processes created by the Bill. There is the question of delay, the loss of a potential purchaser and so on, and perhaps other expenses involved in contesting the situation. I appreciate that time is still running on this, but it would have been helpful to have had draft regulations. I hope that by the time we get to Report, there will be draft regulations because we need to be in a position to assure landowners, business owners and so on that there will be a proper scheme for compensation and a suitable method to adjudicate the amount in the event of a dispute. That is the purpose of my second amendment, Amendment 147EA, which would refer any contested issue to the district auditor—I beg your pardon, not the district auditor but the district valuer—as would be the case in relation to a compulsory purchase, with which this is an analogous situation.

As it is, the clause indicates that the regulations which might be made under it will deal with a range of matters with the widest possible discretion for the Secretary of State on compensation—the amount, who is to be entitled to it and so on—and, indeed, on the review of decisions made under the regulations. It would help the passage of the Bill and help reassure people with an interest if, by the time we get to Report, at least draft regulations could be tabled and discussed. In the mean time, perhaps some comfort could be given by going beyond the expressed intention of declaring that regulations will be made to accepting this amendment, which would require regulations to be made to deal with these matters. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

I had intended to say that depends entirely on the district valuer.

[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.

Amendment 147DB withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

147FZA: Clause 91, page 70, leave out lines 14 to 22 and insert—
“(a) a London borough,(b) a metropolitan district,(c) a unitary council,(d) a county council, or(e) by agreement between a county council and one or more of its constituent district councils, a district council.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this amendment reverts to the issue that I raised previously about districts within counties and who is to be the appropriate authority. It suggests a framework whereby there may be a shared interest that might be disposed of between the two tiers within county areas. I am not asking for a decision on that today but perhaps it is something that we might look at. The views of the Local Government Association might be taken on how best to deal with these matters. I suspect there may well be cases where at county level there is an interest—at district level, possibly not—and it would be invidious if there was a refusal by a district council when the county council might wish to accede to a request. It is worth exploring that grey area further. If the noble Baroness will indicate that discussions can take place, I would be very happy. I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 147FA and 147FB in this group. I do not wish to pursue the technicalities of what they say but they are a means of probing the role of national park authorities in all this—whether the proposed system would be any different in national parks, and whether the special nature of national parks might mean that the system will have to be tweaked or be quite different in those areas. I shall be interested in what the Minister says.

In relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and with my district council hat on, I have to say that if this job is to be done—and, as I have already demonstrated, I am sceptical about whether it will have any real value—this really is a matter of local knowledge. Whether a particular pub in a remote area in the Forest of Bowland is an appropriate community asset to be stuck onto this register, or whether it is the kind of pub that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was talking about—which is nothing to do with the local community—are local judgments. I cannot see the county barons who sit in their fastness in county hall having much of an idea about it. If they were to set up a system, they would have to decentralise it and set up systems at local and district levels. If county council functions can be operated at those levels, they should be operated by district councils. That seems to be common sense, but we discussed that earlier.

[Lord Beecham]

Would the noble Lord concede that in children’s or adult services there might be a need and a demand for buildings or other facilities to be made available whereby the actual funding and support would probably come from the county council, rather than the district, and that there would be no need for the county to be involved? That is the sort of issue that I suggested we needed to discuss. Given the costs of all this, might not some very small district councils find it difficult to operate this scheme? Is there not a case for flexibility here between the two levels—obviously while promoting co-operation between them—in the interests of the community that we would all seek to be fulfilled?

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, the last point might apply in some places. If it does, the basic power should rest with the district council, and if there is to be an agreement, it should be devolved upwards from the district to the county, rather than the other way round, which the noble Lord’s amendment suggests.

His other point about children’s services or other care services may be valid, but it is clearly different from funding a service—for example, totally or partly funding a voluntary or community-based service—where funding might well come from the county council. However, as to the question of who maintains the asset register, which is the narrow point we are talking about, it seems to me that if this job is to be done it ought to be done by the more competent people who, in this case, are probably the more local people.

While I am on my feet, I think that I need to declare another interest, given that I am talking again about councils. I am informed that in this past week I have been added to the long list of vice-presidents of the Local Government Association. I am not sure that it was the thing that I most wanted in life, but if it is an honour, it is an honour. I am sure that it is nothing like as big an honour as being a freeman of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but we all pick up these crumbs where we can. So I declare that interest.

[Lord Beecham]

Did the noble Lord by any chance replace the Secretary of State as a vice-president of the Local Government Association?

[Lord Greaves]

I would like to replace the Secretary of State, but I do not think that there is much possibility of that happening. I do not know whether I would do a better job, but I might have better ideas—in some areas. I had better be careful what I say or the Whips will be after me again. We have been talking about Bradfordians a lot. There are about half a dozen Bradfordians in the Committee. The Secretary of State pretends to be a Bradfordian, but he is not really, he comes from the posh part of Keighley.

[Earl Cathcart]

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has twice raised an interesting point about county councils having care homes within a district and whether they should be involved. Could not the county council nominate that asset as an asset of community value? Then it would be registered with the district and, if something happened to it, the county council could make an offer to bid, or whatever it wanted to do. Would that not be the answer?

[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.