logo
Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told

Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told

Critics at Westminster suggested the developers made the offer to halt the investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) 'into potentially illegal collusion … that could have inflated house prices'.
They argued the Government should insist on the watchdog completing its probe.
Assurances were also sought that the housebuilders at the centre of the inquiry would not be involved in building the affordable homes funded by the payout, which would see the firms 'simply get their money back'.
The CMA announced last week that Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry had offered the payment as part of a package of commitments to address concerns following the investigation, which was launched last year.
The settlement, which is set to go into affordable housing programmes across the UK, would be the largest ever secured by the CMA through commitments from firms under investigation.
The CMA will now consult on the commitments until July 24 and, if accepted, it will mean the regulator does not need to rule on whether the companies broke competition law.
As well as the payment, the housebuilders have agreed legally binding commitments not to share commercially sensitive information with rivals, such as the prices that houses were sold for, except in 'limited circumstances', the CMA said.
They also agreed to work with the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to develop industry-wide guidance on information sharing.
The firms have said the offer of voluntary commitments does not mean they admit any wrongdoing.
Speaking in the House of Lords, housing minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said: 'The £100 million additional funding proposed for affordable housing will mean more families can benefit from a safe and secure home.'
But Liberal Democrat Baroness Thornhill, a vice president of the Local Government Association, said: 'There could be an alternative version to this – major housebuilders pay £100 million to halt the CMA's investigation into potential illegal collusion through the sharing of competitively sensitive information that could have inflated house prices.
'While this settlement might appear a pragmatic, cost-effective solution, would it not be more useful to have some evidence-led answers about whether the business models of the major developers are a significant factor in the slow delivery of housing?
'Therefore, should not the Government insist that the CMA actually completes its investigation, rather than allowing a financial settlement that obscures the fact and definitely looks dodgy?'
Responding, Lady Taylor said: 'The CMA is continuing its work on this, and on July 9 it announced that it is consulting on its intention to accept commitments offered by the housebuilders in relation to the investigation.
'That consultation closes on July 25, and I have already set out some of the commitments that the seven companies have made.
'The £100 million payment, the largest secured through commitments from companies under investigation, will be split between affordable housing programmes across all our four nations.
'I hope that will make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing we all want to see.'
Tory former housing minister Lord Young of Cookham said: 'If the Competition and Markets Authority confirms this £100 million payment for anti-competitive activity, can the minister give an assurance that none of the affordable homes to be built with that money will be built by the volume housebuilders responsible for this activity? Otherwise, they'll simply get their money back.'
Lady Taylor said: 'I am sure that the Competition and Markets Authority, as part of its consultation, will be looking at the best way of distributing that money, so it is not just recycled to the people who caused the problem in the first place.'
Liberal Democrat Lord Rennard said: 'The one-off payment of £100 million towards affordable housing is only about 3% of the operating profit of the five biggest housebuilders this year. Is this a relatively small penalty for them to pay for anti-competitive practices over many years?'
Lady Taylor said: 'This is the biggest settlement ever achieved by the CMA.'
She added: 'We have to consider what is appropriate in these circumstances. I am sure the CMA has done that.'
A CMA spokesperson said: 'Our year-long study of the housing market found that the complex and unpredictable planning system, together with the limitations of speculative private development, was responsible for the persistent under-delivery of new homes in the UK.
'It was also clear that concerns about sharing of confidential information, while important, were not the main driver of the undersupply of housing.
'The £100 million payment we have secured for affordable housing would provide immediate benefits across the UK, without a lengthy further investigation.
'It is in line with fines levied in similar cases that have taken many years to conclude and comes alongside a set of commitments which fully addresses our competition concerns.'
Bellway, which has agreed to pay £13.5 million, said: 'Bellway's offer of commitments does not constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, and the CMA has made no determination as to the existence of any infringement of competition law.
'Bellway welcomes the CMA's consultation on the voluntary commitments and will continue to work constructively with the CMA throughout the process.'
Berkeley declined to comment.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Who will take the fall for the Afghan cover-up?
Who will take the fall for the Afghan cover-up?

Sky News

time21 minutes ago

  • Sky News

Who will take the fall for the Afghan cover-up?

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne's on your podcast app👈 Now details of the enormous accidental data breach by a British soldier that put thousands of Afghans' lives at risk can be discussed publicly - Sky News' Sam Coates and Politico's Anne McElvoy try to address some of the biggest questions on this episode. Why did the government break the glass on using a super-injunction? Has anyone been sacked? Why did the Labour government keep the super-injunction in place for so long?

John Swinney announces cash boost for urban regeneration scheme
John Swinney announces cash boost for urban regeneration scheme

STV News

timean hour ago

  • STV News

John Swinney announces cash boost for urban regeneration scheme

A project hailed as a 'shining example' of urban regeneration is to receive £3.5 million of Scottish Government cash, the First Minister announced. John Swinney confirmed the funding for Clyde Gateway, with the money going towards its work to redevelop the former Shawfield Chemical Works site in Glasgow. The site is being transformed into a hub for high-value manufacturing businesses – with the project being part of Clyde Gateway's efforts to develop homes, hotels and businesses on land which is the equivalent of 130 football pitches across Rutherglen and the east end of the city. The urban regeneration company has already developed almost 750 acres of contaminated land, with its work supporting the creation of more than 8,000 jobs and delivering 4,000 homes in the area. The Scottish Government has provided more than £200 million for Clyde Gateway's work since 2007. The First Minister announced the latest funding ahead of visiting another of its projects, the Innovation Scheme, where £660,000 of government cash has been used to help develop Scotland's first renewable district system. It is hoped the site will become one of the largest office parks in the UK, with the heating system – which also uses solar power and heat pumps – helping to provide buildings there with low-cost energy. Speaking ahead of Wednesday's visit, Mr Swinney said: 'Regenerating our industrial heartlands of the 20th century is an integral part of transforming Scotland's economy in the 21st, and Clyde Gateway is a shining example of what can be achieved. 'Its ambition is creating jobs, improving communities and tackling poverty. 'I am delighted to be able to announce funding to help it continue that work and also to see first-hand this innovative project which will provide affordable green energy to businesses. 'This part of Glasgow has a proud industrial past and the Scottish Government is determined that it will have a strong economic future.' Adding that he wanted to see such benefits 'continue to spread across Scotland', the First Minister said the government was providing £62.15 million this financial year for regeneration projects 'that will revitalise town centres, derelict sites and green spaces'. Martin Joyce, executive director for regeneration at Clyde Gateway, said the £3.5 million of funding will 'accelerate our efforts to transform the east end of Glasgow and Rutherglen'. Mr Joyce added: 'Working alongside the Scottish Government and other key partners, we have already remediated nearly 750 acres of contaminated land, supported the creation of more than 8,000 jobs and delivered 4,000 much-needed new homes, helping to build vibrant communities where people can live, work and play.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country

We shouldn't have to ask for Trump police costs help. Sadly we must
We shouldn't have to ask for Trump police costs help. Sadly we must

The Herald Scotland

time2 hours ago

  • The Herald Scotland

We shouldn't have to ask for Trump police costs help. Sadly we must

The Scottish Government has to be delighted that what is by any measure a personal trip by the man who just happens to be the 47th President of the United States has a meeting with Keir Starmer baked into the schedule. This gives rise to the ludicrous claim this golf trip is in fact a working visit – but it is that label which will allow for to-ing and fro-ing with the Treasury over which government foots the bill, and arguably helps avoid a financial headache for Shona Robison. Policing in Scotland is fully devolved, and in the ordinary run of events you would expect the burden of policing costs to fall entirely on Holyrood. But whenever an event carries any form of UK badge, the expectation for the Treasury to put its hands in its pockets to pay for it is not entirely unreasonable. That basic premise, however, rarely runs seamlessly and is often a source of political tension and institutional headaches. Despite the façade, the 2012 Olympics were by any stretch of casual observation a London-based Games. The tokenistic events in the other home nations – principally to avoid shelling out approximately half a billion pounds of Barnett consequentials to Holyrood, Stormont, and the Senedd – were shown to be just that the moment sudden and unforeseen costs were encountered. Read more by Calum Steele The failure of private security contractor G4S to provide the promised security for the football in Glasgow was catastrophic. A flagship event at the biggest sporting event in the world was in jeopardy. The reputation of the Games, and the nation as a whole, required some decisive leadership – which came in the shape of the then Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, Sir Stephen House, who didn't hesitate to take over the security at enormous and unbudgeted cost to his force. That invariably led to a political tug of war over who should meet those costs. Treasury was resolute that it would not be doing so, as in its view it had already provided additional funding for the Games to Scotland. The Scottish Government argued that as these were meant to be UK Games (despite the less-than-subtle Games logo and marketing), the additional costs should come from the Treasury, leaving only one loser – Strathclyde Police. Ultimately, only dogged perseverance by the force itself saw the costs of fixing G4S's failures being eventually reimbursed by G4S and the Home Office, delivering a moral and financial victory for Sir Stephen and the Scottish Government. Whilst these kinds of technical spats are bread and butter for political geeks and policy wonks, they should be of much wider interest to us all. The nature of devolved politics will always throw up disputes of this kind, and when they do, they actually tell us so much about the way in which the critical infrastructure in the country is formed and functions; and crucially, just how fragile the trust upon which it is built can be. Policing in the UK spans three distinct legal systems. Baked into the structure is a 'mutual aid' system – where any police force in the UK can call upon others for help. The UK's mutual aid system allows police forces to share the load in times of sudden demand or extreme emergency. It's a model found nowhere else in the world. Arguments can be made both ways over which makes most sense, but self-sufficiency signals a national confidence and competence in a way that the perceived pragmatism of sharing capacity doesn't. The truth of it is £5m ought to be chicken-feed when looking at the costs of guaranteeing the safety and security of the President of the United States. Arguments over who pays, or the fact there is a question of anyone other than the Scottish Government picking up the costs, miss the wider point altogether – and that is that despite a police service of some 16,000 officers, our national police service has to call on mutual aid at all. Stephen House agreed to take over the security of the 2012 Olympic football in Glasgow at enormous and unbudgeted cost to his force (Image: Danny Lawson) There is no doubt the Police Scotland of 2025 is a much weaker beast than that of 2018 and is more reliant on mutual aid now than then. Some will argue that's what the system allows for and we should be proud to call on assistance from elsewhere. I don't buy that. Calling for help in times of extreme emergencies is one thing, but calling for help for what should be a fundamental capability of the police service of our nation is not something we should boast about. The simple fact is Donald Trump is the first American President since Ronald Reagan to legitimately claim direct Scottish lineage. Whether he's the first or last of a Trump dynasty in the White House remains to be seen – but his ties to Scotland are indisputable. Any US President with clear links to Scotland should be acknowledged – strategically, if not personally – for the potential soft-power benefits of claiming the world's most powerful leader as a son of the nation are inescapable. Whether we like it or not, Trump will almost certainly continue to visit his mother's homeland long after leaving office – and wherever he goes, the scale of security required to accommodate him will far exceed that of any predecessor. It ought not to be a controversial matter for any nation's police service to be able to say unequivocally that they could keep him safe, nor, for that matter, for any government to easily be able to pay for it. One thing is for sure – the 'working visit' label will cease to apply once he leaves office, leaving only one budget to pay for it – the Scottish one. If we can't manage now – how on earth will we manage then? Calum Steele is a former General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, and former general secretary of the International Council of Police Representative Associations. He remains an advisor to both.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store