The Government's policy of empowering people through Community Rights to save local assets from closure, build community housing, take over local authority services and bring public land back into use has in its first two years had mixed results. The Rights - to Bid, to Build, to Challenge and to Reclaim Land - have generated some successes, with a small number of community groups being able, for example, to use the Community Right to Bid to stop valued local assets such as the local pub being sold for redevelopment. But limitations have also been exposed. The Community Right to Build is too complicated; the Community Right to Challenge, which triggers a tendering exercise to run a local service, risks damaging relations between communities and local government and is a gamble for groups wanting to run a local service as they may be outbid; and the Community Right to Reclaim Land has hardly been used. The Committee wants to see the Rights improved so that local people have more say over what happens to the land, buildings and services in their area. The Government should: enhance the Community Right to Bid by increasing from six to nine months the time people have to bid to buy a local asset; make it easier to remove or restrict the "permitted development" exemption from planning control when an asset has been listed as having Community Value; and make an asset's status as an Asset of Community Value a material consideration in all but minor planning applications.

This report follows up our November 2014 report on child sexual exploitation in Rotherham and covers two matters: the role of Ofsted and Louise Casey's inspection report on Rotherham. It is clear that the inspection arrangements that Ofsted had in place from 2007, when it became responsible for inspecting children's services at Rotherham, failed to detect either the evidence, or the knowledge within the council, of large-scale child sexual exploitation. The structured inspection method used at that time to inspect local authorities' children's services was designed by Ofsted and did not focus on child sexual exploitation. The result was a lack of intelligence and understanding in Ofsted's handling of Rotherham. Child sexual exploitation was missed as was the superficiality of Rotherham's response to inspection findings and its dysfunction. The Committee found Louise Casey's report on her inspection of Rotherham to be penetrating and instructive. It not only confirmed the dreadful findings in the Jay Report but, what was worse, revealed that Rotherham Council was in denial about child sexual exploitation.

How public land has been stolen from us. Much has been written about Britain's trailblazing post-1970s privatization program, but the biggest privatization of them all has until now escaped scrutiny: the privatization of land. Since Margaret Thatcher took power in 1979, and hidden from the public eye, about 10 per cent of the entire British land mass, including some of its most valuable real estate, has passed from public to private hands. Forest land, defence land, health service land and above all else local authority land- for farming and school sports, for recreation and housing - has been sold off en masse. Why? How? And with what social, economic and political consequences? The New Enclosure provides the first ever study of this profoundly significant phenomenon, situating it as a centrepiece of neoliberalism in Britain and as a successor programme to the original eighteenth-century enclosures. With more public land still slated for disposal, the book identifies the stakes and asks what, if anything, can and should be done.

This report follows up one issue left from the Committee's 2013 report on the Private Rented Sector (HCP 50, session 2013-14, ISBN 9780215060730): whether or not England should follow Scotland and introduce a ban on letting agents charging fees to tenants other than rents and refundable deposits. The change in Scotland had only been made in November 2012 and when the Committee reported in July 2013 views on its impact were speculative and varied widely. The Committee therefore decided to wait two years from its introduction and seek hard evidence on the impact of the change in Scotland. The Committee sought evidence from a number of organisations representing tenants, agents and landlords in Scotland and have examined relevant published reports. The Committee concludes that the evidence available is not strong enough to reach a view on the impact of the ban on fees in Scotland. In addition, the issues around fees that were raised in the original inquiry are more broadly based than simply fees to tenants, as they affect the overall role of agents in the market and the transparency of that market. The Committee therefore call on the Department for Communities and Local Government to commission a comprehensive impact assessment of the effects of the introduction of a ban on agents' fees in England.