Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 99: 99: Clause 80, page 37, line 38, after ““England,”” insert— ““( ) a community land trust (as defined in section 274),”” The noble Lord said: On Second Reading, I said that the community land trust was an idea whose time had come. My time has come now, and I intend to expand just a little on it. I take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the Minister and his advisers something that has been bubbling along for a little while. As one can see from the Marshalled List, I am not alone. I am delighted by the support that the amendment has received. When the Government introduced the housing Green Paper in 2007, they paid tribute to the possibilities of the community land trust. The Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party have also indicated their sympathy for it. We also have in the Committee the housing expert, the noble Lord, Lord Best, who has put his name to the amendment. One could therefore ask what on earth is stopping progress in the Bill. I am sure that the Minister has a number of very good reasons. When the noble Lord, Lord Best, moved his amendment earlier this afternoon, he said that there was no disagreement, but that we had been told to wait. That may well be the fate of my amendment. I ask the Committee to understand the history of the community land trusts and the garden city movement, which is well known to me. Experience in America and Australia proves that this mechanism is capable of serving the needs of the public. The purpose of the CLT is to hold land and other assets for the benefit of its defined local community. It balances the needs and interests of the individual with the interests of the community as a whole, by separating the value of the land from the value of the property on it. A CLT holds the land in perpetuity. The owners of the buildings on it may be individual home owners, mutuals and co-operatives, or occupants of affordable rented housing. It is the community ownership and stewardship of the land asset that regulates the occupancy, limits the resale value of the homes built on it and ensures that the housing remains affordable to the community. It is such a simple prospect and project. For many years one has considered the two costs involved in housing. The cost of land was once very low. I remember that we were building well constructed council housing in Enfield and that the land cost less than £2,000. Now I shudder to think what it would be, but it must be up to £100,000, so the cost of land is prohibitive. When I ask questions of those who advise me on these matters, they tell me that Salford University conducted a survey that reported that inhibition flowed from the uncertainty of a legal definition of a CLT. I can understand that. The report said that authorities and communities, and especially those who fund them, want to know the precise standing of the CLT before putting money in. That is a good idea. I am willing to hear the Minister tell me that it is a good idea but that it is not in the right form of words. I would be saddened if he were to say that there is another opportunity, but not yet. There is no better opportunity than now. The Housing Corporation permitted and encouraged pilot projects in Stroud, Plymouth and Bristol, which were enthusiastically received. In my post last week came a letter from the community asset trust in north Shropshire which had heard about the initiatives. It has written to me, telling me what it is about and what it hopes to do. Frankly, it says everything that I believe should happen. Local people will have an asset owned by the community. As the Committee knows, one of my objections to the sale of council houses is that they have been taken out of community control. The houses are controlled by private landlords or private owner-occupiers. I see an opportunity for the Government to give their blessing—I am not talking about funding, resources or priorities. The amendment asks the Government to agree that a legal definition is needed and to authorise their colleagues to table a better drafted definition on Report; I have been in this place long enough to realise that my wording may not be in the correct form. I declare an interest: as the Committee will know, I am well associated with the Co-operative movement. Those involved in co-operative housing are anxious to serve the community, particularly David Rogers, the chief officer of CDS co-operatives, who has a lot of experience. It was only a working party that made the recommendation for a legal definition. The Government are also anxious to serve the community. Nothing divides us politically or in trying to make progress. I welcome the Government’s stance in having not just one aspect, arrow or bow, but a number of them. This solution will not suit everyone. In north Shropshire, a thriving group of people represents many aspects and they should be encouraged. Land is precious. Where will it come from? It could come from redundant brownfield sites owned by the council, the Ministry of Defence or other parts of government. It could come from private individuals, who wish to say, ““I love this community. We are being denuded of our young people who cannot afford a house. I will donate acres of land. Instead of making a killing and getting millions of pounds, I will give it to the community””. The community then has the knowledge that that is an asset controlled by the community to serve the community in perpetuity. I hope that the Minister will say something sympathetic. I hope that he will not ask me to wait for a better opportunity in another Bill. Time is pressing. This idea has been about for some time. People are making plans, possibly based upon the fact that this is a housing and regeneration Bill. They may be naive in believing that this is the best vehicle to take this idea forward. It is the best idea, so I hope that the Minister can help. I beg to move.