My Lords, I rise with deep gratitude to my noble friend Lady Andrews, and especially to her advisers, for having listened, reflected and produced an answer to the basic issue, which was the need for a definition. That gratitude is unalloyed; it is clear and I am very grateful indeed. The Minister has demonstrated over recent weeks that she listens carefully and that, when there is a proposition that needs her reflection and advice, she takes it away. Today, we have the product of that. I warmly congratulate her and her colleagues.
As with everything else, there is a ““but””, an ““if”” and an ““if only””. I understand that the amendments are as far as the department and the Minister can go. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who said some minutes ago that she knew how far she could go and that this was it. I accept the same; there is no question of muddying the water. We have gone as far as we can go.
However, there has been intense discussion, particularly about defining who should be members of the trust. Amendment No. 14 defines a local community as, "““the individuals who live or work, or want to live or work, in a specific area””."
There is no objection to that, but everyone understands that a community is more than individuals; a range of other bodies is part of the community. I want the Minister to reflect on that and, I hope, to say that she and her advisers share my understanding. When amendments refer to ““members”” and ““individuals””, there may well be a legal reason for those words—I do not quibble with that—but how wide should the interpretation of those terms be? For instance, a community includes voluntary organisations, parish councils, local councils, civic society organisations, schools, local health service organisations, key local employers and local shops. I understand the difficulty in putting something in the Bill that is all-embracing, so I seek an understanding that, when a trust is established, the beneficiaries from the product of the trust’s work can include the examples that I have given. I simply want an understanding.
Perhaps I may help the Minister with the following illustration as a practical example. The local community land trust for one of the 14 national pilot projects supported by the Government is on the former Cashes Green Hospital site in David Drew’s constituency in Stroud, Gloucestershire. He is a personal friend and is sponsored by the Co-operative movement, in which I declare an interest. The CLT would like to encourage a local GP to provide health services to the village of Cashes Green by using some of its land to facilitate the provision of a health centre. Although it is part of the National Health Service, a GP practice is technically a privately run business owned by the doctors who are partners in the practice. Another local community land trust might want to provide premises for a local shop that is also run as a commercial enterprise. Such uses of a CLT’s assets benefit, "““individuals who live or work, or want to live or work, in a specified area””,"
but that is an indirect, rather than a direct, benefit.
I am not nitpicking and I am not being too pedantic, but such provision would enormously put the icing on the cake of what we have achieved. The main benefit of a CLT, as the Minister knows, is, "““furthering the social, economic and environmental interests of a local community””,"
through working with or benefiting organisations, "““by acquiring and managing land and other assets””."
It would be satisfactory if my noble friend were able to say—I am not putting words into his mouth—that his understanding is that the bodies that I have listed could be embraced by that definition.
I take this last opportunity to thank Members of all parties around the House. The Minister took on board the fact that this was not a party matter but a House matter, a housing matter and a community matter, which has been reflected in the Minister’s willingness to act. I am grateful for what has been achieved and, with the possibility of clarification, I am delighted with the amendments.
Housing and Regeneration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Graham of Edmonton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 17 July 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Housing and Regeneration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
703 c1339-40 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:28:03 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_493829
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_493829
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_493829