I do not have evidence about informal approaches, because they are, inevitably, beneath the radar and we do not see them.
As I think Linda Gillespie from COSS touched on last week, it is interesting, in the way in which asset transfer requests are being received and interpreted, that communities are looking for ownership of an asset to be transferred to them but—I do not have numbers; this is anecdotal—there has been a shift towards offering them leases rather than a transfer of ownership.
That reflects, as much as anything, a lack of confidence in the ability of communities to manage and own assets. Anecdotally, again, public bodies are thinking, “What happens if it all goes wrong? We will just be left to pick up the pieces.” However, so far, although there must have been one or two failed assets that communities have taken on board, I think that they could be counted literally on the fingers of one hand.
That reflects a mindset and culture, which we need to tackle somehow, that transferring an asset is seen as a disposal—a diminution of the crown jewels—rather than as a public investment in community wellbeing. There is not full appreciation of the added value of transferring an asset.
That also applies to transfer of an asset at less than market value. That is another revealing aspect. Local authorities and public bodies can transfer assets at less than market value, but tend to hide behind the yellow book, or whatever the regulations are. If there was a recognition of the non-monetary value—the intangible benefits—of transferring an asset, that would reflect that we are all more on the same page; it seems to me that we are not on the same page. It speaks to the need for culture change, rather than anything else.