Contribution
I agree with my hon. Friend. Sometimes we can underestimate the similarities between rural areas and inner cities, where community spaces are limited.
I followed the campaign of Emily’s Black Lion for a number of years, including during my time as a parliamentary candidate, when I had the opportunity to visit the Black Lion and meet members of the community group. What struck me then, and continues to impress me today, is that this was never simply a campaign to save a pub; it was a campaign to sustain a community. Local residents spoke of ambitions to develop the pub further as a café, drop-in facility and community hub serving local residents throughout the day. That ambition has only become more important as other services have been lost. During the course of the campaign, Ireby also lost its bus service. In a city, losing a pub may mean walking to the next one—although I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) has just said—but in a village such as Ireby, losing the last pub can mean losing one of the last places where people regularly come together.
When the future of the pub was threatened, local people did exactly what Governments of all colours have encouraged communities to do: they organised. They established a community benefit society, commissioned surveys and valuations, prepared a business plan, achieved the community share standard, launched a community share offer and raised more than £100,000 from around 200 investors, with further pledges available. On a modest estimate, the core volunteers contributed more than 1,300 hours of unpaid work to the project, including more than 800 hours from one individual alone. Think about that for a moment—more than 1,300 volunteer hours from local people who simply wanted to keep their pub alive.
Most importantly, they did all of that in good faith. They pursued the route laid before them through the community ownership fund. They incurred costs, undertook surveys, assembled evidence and met every requirement asked of them, then just as they were preparing to submit what they believed was a completed application, the general election was called. The process was interrupted, and the funding scheme was subsequently closed. The Government have since confirmed that the community ownership fund is closed and there will be no further application rounds. This was devastating for the campaign in Ireby.
Where are we now? I am not here to referee a dispute between the owner and the community group, nor am I here to put a value on the pub—those are matters for negotiation between the parties involved. However, the position in Ireby illustrates a wider policy question. The community group believes a purchase remains achievable with sufficient support. The owner has expressed concerns about the effect of restrictions and uncertainty on the future marketability of the property. The argument advanced by the owner in Ireby is that restrictions intended to support community ownership may, in some circumstances, discourage other purchasers from coming forward—purchasers who may wish to run a pub and secure the future of the asset.
Members may or may not agree with that assessment. My point is that the argument exists. Some may argue that it is irrational, but potential buyers often are not rational. It is an argument that becomes more significant when communities do not have access to the funding required to complete an acquisition. The most effective response is not necessarily fewer protections. It may be better funding, better access to finance and a clearer pathway from community interest to community ownership.
The challenge goes beyond this Bill. Parliament has recently strengthened community acquisition rights through the new community right-to-buy provisions in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. Those reforms extend the moratorium period and create stronger opportunities for communities to acquire valued local assets. I welcome the ambition behind those reforms, which are motivated by many of the same objectives that underpin the Bill before us today. However, I am interested in how Ministers see those rights operating in practice where communities face significant difficulties accessing capital.