Category Archives: Posted

Happy New Year! New Year Dishonour List 2018

by Ian Jenkins

Dish out your tawdry, bloodsoaked gongs

Reward your friends for all their wrongs

Hang sigils struck from stolen gold

From those who do just as they’re told.
Wrap criminals in silk and ermine

Make peers and knights of lying vermin

Honour those who turn their hands

To murder and theft in ravaged lands 
But throw some plebs an OBE

In the name of fake egality

And as cover for this filthy game

Of honours as a mask for shame.
And when your shabby little list

Is safely grasped in the monarch’s fist

Pray to the darkest gods to bless

Your litany of wickedness.
But year on year the luster fades

Of ersatz honour on parade

And one day all will wonder how

Humanity was made to bow

Tories quietly  drop two flagship housing policies from key strategy document

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-housing-policy-starter-homes-right-to-buy-housing-association-sajid-javid-tories-a8119266.html

Exclusive: Plans to build 200,000 homes for first-time buyers and help more people access Right to Buy are excluded from latest plan amid ‘complete rethink’

Ben Kentish @BenKentish 20 hours ago – 275 comments

Two of the Conservatives’ flagship housing policies have been dropped from a key government document, raising questions about the future of the plans.

The new “single departmental plan” published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) does not include a single reference to Starter Homes, which form a central plank of the Government’s commitment to increase home ownership, or of the planned extension of Right to Buy.

The document, which forms part of the guidance for civil servants working on housing, is in stark contrast to the previous plan published last year, in which the two policies featured prominently and were mentioned several times as part of the Conservatives’ housing strategy.

In the latest version, five specific pledges to boost home ownership, including delivering Starter Homes and the extension of Right to Buy, have been downgraded to a single-line promise to “increase home ownership through schemes including Help to Buy”.

Fewer social homes being built than at any time since Second World War

Furthermore, a specific commitment to “increasing home ownership” has been absorbed into the broader aim of fixing “the broken housing market”.

Starter Homes are properties supposedly affordable to first-time buyers because they are offered at a 20 per cent discount.

Ministers had promised to build 200,000 of them by 2020 but The Independent revealed last month that not a single Starter Home has yet been built. This led to officials admitting the policy remained an “ambition” – but have now removed all mention of it from DCLG’s housing objectives.

The previous iteration of the departmental plan included a clear commitment to the policy. It said: “We are delivering a major boost to affordable home ownership with Starter Homes and extending Right to Buy to housing association tenants.”

It reiterated a pledge to build 200,000 Starter Homes, including 30,000 on brownfield land – former industrial sites earmarked for development.

References to the planned extension of Right to Buy to 1.3 million housing association tenants have also been quietly dropped from the latest document.

Whereas the 2016 document promised to “implement a voluntary agreement with housing associations and the National Housing Federation that will extend Right to Buy level discounts to 1.3 million housing association tenants, giving them the opportunity to buy their own home”, the latest version includes no mention at all of the controversial Right to Buy scheme.

The omissions will probably fuel speculation the Government is wavering in its commitment to two of its most contentious housing policies – especially given the delays in implementing them.

Amid widespread concern about the future of social housing, Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary, admitted in October the Conservatives had “failed” on housing in recent years and promised a “complete rethink of our approach to social housing” in the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster.

That revaluation could have consequences for the two policies not included in the latest DCLG plan, both of which are predicted to accelerate the loss of social housing – something highlighted by the Grenfell tragedy. The extension of Right to Buy is expected to lead to the loss of 75,000 social homes, while Starter Homes will be built at the expense of other types of affordable housing, including those for social rent.

Flagship government housing plan fails to deliver a single home in three years

Labour said the omissions in the new document showed the Government had “given up” on helping first-time buyers.

John Healey, the party’s Shadow Housing Secretary, said: “With home ownership at a 30-year low and the number of younger homeowners in free fall, the Government has now given up on first-time buyers.

“We need much more affordable housing for younger people looking to buy their first home but ministers have erased new housing for first-time buyers from the Communities Department’s official objectives.

“After seven years of failure on housing, the Conservatives have no plan to fix the housing crisis. Ministers should back Labour’s plan to build 100,000 FirstBuy homes linked to average incomes to give first-time buyers the chance to own their home.”

The Department for Communities and Local Government said the new strategy document was a “high-level summary” and did not reflect a change in policy.

A spokesperson said: “This single departmental plan is not an exhaustive list of all of the department’s policies. This is a high-level summary of our priorities and overall aims for the Government.”

The latest plan was published as ministers said the implementation of a third major Tory housing policy is to be be pushed back until 2019 at the earliest. Controversial measures introduced in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 will force local councils to sell off their most valuable council homes in order to fund the extension of Right to Buy.

Town hall leaders say the policy will lead to a huge loss of social housing at a time when waiting lists are already up to 10 years in some parts of the country, while housing charity Shelter estimates that up to 113,000 council homes could be sold off under the plans.

The policy had already been delayed until at least 2018 and Mr Javid confirmed last week that it will be pushed back again, until 2019 at the earliest. A government spokesperson said ministers were “considering” how to implement the policy.

Criminalising homelessness: Homeless man jailed and forced to pay £115 after he fell asleep in doorway of central Bath hotel

He has to pay a £115 victim surcharge

A homeless man has to pay £115 – after being locked up for falling asleep in the doorway of a hotel in Bath.

When 51-year-old Eli John James refused to leave the doorway of the Westgate Buildings Travelodge in Bath city centre on Saturday, December 9, he was arrested and dragged before the courts.

Two days later at Bath Magistrates Court James pleaded guilty to sleeping in the doorway without a reasonable excuse and was sentenced to three weeks in jail.

Room rates at the Travelodge start at £63, while Mr James's £115 fine must be paid by Christmas day
The Travelodge in Westgate Buildings is the company’s third in Bath

The court imposed a £115 victim surcharge.

Mr James, of no fixed address, was in violation of a criminal behaviour order imposed by Salisbury Court in May of this year when he refused to leave the Travelodge doorway.

Mr James is facing the prospect of paying hotel giants Travelodge a £115 victim surcharge
James has to pay a £115 victim surcharge

Bath Magistrates Court also noted that the offence was so serious because of Mr James’s previous breaches of the order, and because the breach was aggravated by the defendant’s previous offending.

introducing “Ourfield” – a cooperative co-farming/crop share investment collective grains movement

OurField is a co-op grains movement that will change the way we grow grains forever, which has started in one field #OurFieldWeston collectively farmed by 40 people, on Cherry farm, in Hertfordshire.

Ref: http://www.ourfieldproject.org/

Do you dare to crop share? #OurField grows
by Tessa Tricks on 7 December, 2017
Ref: http://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/12271/

This past spring, I joined 41 others in the project #OurField, co-invest in a crop. Together with a farmer, we decided what to grow, how to grow it and what we would do with the crop. #OurField is a co-operative grains movement seeking to shift our relationship with food and its production, and working to make the food system a fairer place for farmers.

The financial and emotional support of investment allows farmers to experiment with different growing methods, learn about new opportunities and better understand public perspectives. At the same time the investors share the farmer’s risks and challenges. It’s as much about empathy and sharing the experience, as it is learning about food production.

Much has happened since I last wrote about the collective. We’ve chosen a crop, disputed how organically to grow it and grappled with taking it to market. Anyone can peer into the window of the collective decision-making process by visiting Loomio, the online platform that helped the geographically and ideologically disparate investors in #OurField, reach consensus.

In the grand scheme of our decision making, crop choice was relatively straight forward.

On the first vote we agreed that we would grow spelt with a companion crop which would not be harvested but instead act as a weed suppressant and help to build soil fertility.

Things got tricky when we had to decide on whether to add nitrogen fertiliser to the crop. In the words of one co-investor ”The first decision helped give the project a bit of an identity, a face (or crop) to a name. [But] the second decision could have a big impact on the end-result of our experiment.” The vote was close with many on the fence wrestling with the sheer number of factors at play – you can find them outlined in detail on the Loomio site and in this blog from the our field team.

At the last minute the vote swung towards the decision not to use nitrogen fertiliser on the crop.

I am very pleased that a high degree of respect was maintained during all discussions online, despite differing opinions. I think everyone has found it a learning journey. So many variables come up about every decision, it constantly brings you down to earth, and we are reminded how big the task at hand is when growing 20 acres of cereals.
Abby Rose, Our Field Co-ordinator

As one of the investors with the least experience in the field, I found the urgency as well as the complexity of the decisions we had to make, a challenge. The crop doesn’t stop growing just because our lives are busy. You can’t ask the ripe field of spelt for an extension to read up on the pros and cons of different agricultural techniques. I don’t think I was the only one that struggled to keep up at times. The number of people involved in coming to the decision dwindling as the project progressed. Less than half have actively participated in discussions since the first vote, and half of that again have been proactive in driving the discussion. I caught up with a number of the co-op investors to see how they were finding the experience and how it faired alongside their expectations.

Urban grower and self- identified tech geek, Darren was keen to see how the online platform could be used to make it easier for people to participate in the governance of community supported agriculture. “At times I’ve found it slightly frustrating, wanting to know more, or be more involved, but there is so much to be done, and so much to understand, in both the farming process and running a project like this, transmitting all information is impossible. Considering everything, I think the team have been doing a great job.

When asked what advice he would give to new investors, Darren declares, “Go for it. Even if you don’t think you have much time to be involved, you will learn loads about how your food is produced and will be helping to support a new, hopefully better way of organising our food production.

Christine, like Darren has been one of the more vocal contributors. She joined due to her interest in micro-bakeries and has found that the project helped her to learn a huge amount about the supply system. “I am horrified that the value of the crop is so low and by the risks farmers have to take. I now want to know much more about farming subsidies and how that system works and how a ‘crop to mill’ cooperative could work.

She’s struggled with the shifts in the group’s energy and the time that she’s been able to contribute and warns future potential investors “not to underestimate the amount of work needed to keep the momentum going, it shouldn’t fall to just a few”.

Many of the co-investors appreciate that consensus-making with a group of forty was always going to be a challenge and they have been prepared to take a back seat, investing their money, but not their time. “I knew from the beginning that this was a project I was intrigued by and keen to support, without it being one that I would necessarily dedicate myself to, beyond paying and trying to stay up to date.” Others struggled with the remote nature of the task, “I would have stayed more engaged if the key decision-making discussions took place face to face. If you hadn’t looked at Loomio for a while, it seemed too daunting to catch up.”

Unanimous among the group is that much has been learnt and the pressures upon the farmer are many and far ranging. Albeit brief, a stint in his shoes has been eye-opening and rewarding for all.

John Cherry, our innovative farmer has also learnt a lot, taking risks that he wouldn’t have afforded otherwise and great joy in the process, he says.

I have particularly enjoyed growing a spelt crop without any inputs – something I like the idea of, but left to my own devices, I couldn’t have resisted spraying most of the weeds out and giving it a dollop of fertiliser. It was a disappointing year for spring crops with the long dry periods and poor growing conditions, so quite possibly the no input regime was the best thing we could have done!

It is a fairly pain-free way of trying something new, …it’s not your decision so you don’t kick yourself for mistakes, and financially you are sharing the risk with [more than] 40 other people. More importantly it is fun and educational…having to explain what we do to such a clever bunch of people helps us see things through the eyes of others. Farmers don’t get out very often…”

This month the group will decide where to sell the spelt, which unfortunately wasn’t of a high enough Hagberg number to be milled for bread flour, we are assessing options such as beer, gin, animal feed and biscuit grain. We will also have to decide how to proceed in the year ahead. Will John keep us on for another year, and will any of the collective cash out? Keep an eye on Loomio for final updates and watch this space for a handbook so you can start your own #OurField project anywhere in the world.

Guardian editorial: make water available for free on tap [and food, clothing, shelter]

Great start Guardianistas…. but

Water is a human right under Article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights

Therefore NOBODY should have to pay ANYTHING for it

We got the post WWII welfare state wrong – everyone should have been given these things as a RIGHT – not just to be given enough money to buy them through ‘social security’.

Other basic needs under Article 25 are
Food
Clothing
Shelter
– provided for all in Britain until the 1979 Thatcher government

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

The Guardian view on plastic bottles: make water available on tap

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/08/the-guardian-view-on-plastic-bottles-make-water-available-on-tap

Editorial Thankfully the campaign to cut our plastic habit by making free fresh water widely available is gathering momentum

Friday 8 December 2017 19.00 GMT

Like a wave building far out at sea, the momentum behind universally available cool fresh water is growing steadily. It is driven by the realisation that the world’s plastic habit must be broken, quickly. It;s reckoned that a million plastic bottles are bought worldwide every minute; the meaning of this number is best expressed in the images of mountains of litter made of this virtually indestructable material piled by the tides on to otherwise deserted beaches in remote corners of the globe. It is an unnecessary disaster. There is no reason why water has to come wrapped in its own environmentally lethal packaging.

This week, London’s mayor Sadiq Khan pledged to develop a city-wide network of water fountains and refill stations. A Bristol-based campaign to set up refill stations in city centres and seaside resorts is flooding across Europe. Australian cities such as Melbourne have digital maps showing where drinking fountains are available.

There could be so much more – airside refill stations in every international airport to slash the thousands of bottles jettisoned at security would be a good start.

A refill station on every platform in every railway station would be even better. The choice between income from retail outlets or a low-cost move to help end plastic pollution is really no choice at all.

Plymouth’s ex-Barclays Bank squatters evicted from Mutley Plain

An enforcement officer served the squatters with a possession order from the landlord

A group of squatters who have been living in different empty buildings along Mutley Plain for months have been kicked out.

Most recently Phil Northmore and Ryan Roberts had been squatting in the vacant former Polish shop, after being moved on from the Barclays bank building next door.

But now the friends, along with a few other squatters, have been told to leave and not come back.

On Wednesday an enforcement officer visited the squat and served them with an ‘Interim Possession Order’, giving them 24 hours to leave.

A spokesperson for Devon and Cornwall Police said although it is not a criminal matter, they were made aware of the situation.

“They [the squatters] left without any trouble,” the spokesperson confirmed.

The Herald went inside the squat in the former Barclays bank branch in October and met Phil and Ryan, who had climbed in through an open window.

They were squatting in the former bank before they were evicted [Paul Slater Images Ltd – picture removed]

Phil, who is now living in York, said they gave the enforcement officer “no problems” and gladly moved out within the deadline.

“There is a lot of stigma behind squatting,” he said on the phone from York. “People just don’t understand.”

The local neighbourhood beat manager for Devon and Cornwall Police said many squats are attached to anti-social behaviour, and it is then the police will get involved.

But they said at the time both Phil and Ryan had always been cooperative.

“But if they are causing anti-social behaviour and we get complains then we will deal with those issues.

“We make the landlords aware of the issue, and it is their job to go through the courts and attempt to obtain a court order.”

Their friend Mike has somewhere to live but likes to visit the squat [Paul Slater Images Ltd – picture removed]

Although it has been widely reported that recent changes to the law make squatting in residential premises a criminal offence for the first time, this is not strictly true.

Plymouth-based solicitors Thompson and Jackson explain: “Refusing to leave a property when requested by a ‘displaced residential occupier’ has been a criminal offence for more than 30 years,” they say on their website, “and the theft of someone else’s electricity etc and causing damage to a property are also criminal acts.

“The new laws on squatting only apply to residential buildings, not land in general, and they only apply to those who are living or intending to live in the property in which they squat, not to transient occupiers.

“If a property you own is occupied by squatters, persuading the police to take action can be a difficult job and it is crucially important to be able to demonstrate conclusively your right to take action to recover your property. Do not be surprised if the squatters claim that you have entered into a lease with them, and be prepared to refute such claims and have the necessary proof available at the beginning.”

Phil says there are golden rules to squatting and his own rules too [Paul Slater Images Ltd – picture removed]

Because of this, Phil and Ryan have no problem entering an empty building – of which there of many on Mutley Plain – and making it their home, however temporary.

When they were squatting in the former Barclays bank branch they pinned up bunting and fairy lights, created makeshift bedrooms and even had a table and chairs.

Phil, who has served a tour in Afghanistan in the military, said: “Most [of the empty buildings a squatter would make their home] are insecure with windows open, and that’s how we get in. No one comes round to check them, they just leave them.”

“This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter, so we didn’t actually attend.

“They [the squatters] went without any trouble. There were six people in the property at the time.”

Guardian: House prices aren’t the issue – land prices are

House prices aren’t the issue – land prices are

Timely revisit of what will for many be an old cookie

There’s a simple solution that will give us cheaper homes – if only the chancellor would listen Winston Churchill in 1910. He promoted the ‘people’s budget’ and lamented landowners’ profits.

Patrick Collinson Saturday 18 November 2017 07.00 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2017/nov/18/house-prices-land-prices-cheaper-homes

While reporting on the recent court case where controversial landlord Fergus Wilson defended (but lost) his right to refuse to let to Indians and Pakistanis, I learned something about how he’s now making money. He is now far from being Britain’s biggest buy-to-let landlord. He’s down to 350 homes, from a peak of 1,000. And what’s he doing with the cash made from sales? Buying agricultural land close to Kent’s biggest towns. One plot he bought for £45,000 is now worth, he boasted, £3m with development permission. And therein lies the reason why we have a housing crisis.

As long ago as 1909, Winston Churchill, then promoting Lloyd George’s “people’s budget” and its controversial measures to tax land, told an audience in Edinburgh that the landowner “sits still and does nothing” while reaping vast gains from land improvements by the municipality, such as roads, railways, power from generators and water from reservoirs far away. “Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and the cost of other people … To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is sensibly enhanced … he contributes nothing even to the process from which his own enrichment is derived.”

Landowners pocketed £9bn in profit from land they sold for new housing in 2014-15

When Britain’s post-war housebuilding boom began, it was based on cheap land. As a timely new book, The Land Question by Daniel Bentley of thinktank Civitas, sets out, the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act under Clement Attlee’s government allowed local authorities to acquire land for development at “existing use value”. There was no premium because it was earmarked for development. The New Towns Act 1946 was similar, giving public corporation powers to compulsorily purchase land at current-use value. The unserviced land cost component for homes in Harlow and Milton Keynes was just 1% of housing costs at the time. Today, the price of land can easily be half the cost of buying a home: £439,999 is the cost of land with planning permission for one terraced home in a less salubrious part of London such as Peckham.

What happened? Landowners rebelled and Harold Macmillan’s Conservative government introduced the 1961 Land Compensation Act. Henceforth, landowners were to be paid the value of the land, including any “hope value”, when developed. Today a hectare of land is worth 100 times more when used for housing rather than farming. Yet when a bureaucratic pen grants permission, all the value goes to the landowner, not the public. Bentley says landowners pocketed £9bn in profit from land they sold for new housing in 2014-15. For each new home built that year, £60,000 went as profit to the landowner. Major infrastructure projects such as Crossrail 2 and the Bakerloo tube line extension are estimated to cost the public purse £36bn. Landowners, meanwhile, will pocket £87bn from increased land values nearby.

In the Netherlands, the only sizeable country in Europe more densely populated than England, the Expropriation Act allows local authorities to buy land at current-use value. They prepare it for development, use part for social housing and sell the rest for commercial use, often at a large profit.

Think of it. Councils take all the financial uplift from planning permission, using potentially huge profits from land sales to build social housing almost at no cost to the public purse. Developers focus on making profits from building high-quality homes, not from hoarding plots. Land speculation is killed off almost overnight.

Instead, the chancellor will tell us in this week’s budget that the solution is billions more for help to buy. All that does is raise property prices and landowner profits. If only Philip Hammond could be more like Churchill.

Dukes of Westminster pumped millions into secretive offshore firms and avoided billions of pounds in tax

Duke of Westminster’s five main estates: 11,500 acre Eaton Estate in rural Cheshire; 23,500 acre Abbeystead Estate in rural Lancashire; 96,000 acre Reay Forest estate in rural Sutherland, the La Garganta Estate in rural Spain and 300 acres of prime central London land in Mayfair and Belgravia worth c. £10bn.

Hugh Grosvenor became Britain’s youngest billionaire following his father’s death in 2016. Most of the father-of-four’s personal estate was left in trust with the income going to his widow Natalia but trustees were given the power to transfer all or any of the capital to her. The UK’s inheritance tax of 40 per cent of any assets worth over £325,000 is not payable on anything left to a spouse or on charitable donations. If it had been applied to the late Duke’s entire wealth, the liability would have been around £3.4 billion.

Paradise Papers bring to light key parts of structure used to manage £9.5bn fortune inherited last year by Hugh Grosvenor, 26

Juliette Garside @JulietteGarside Tuesday 7 November 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/07/duke-of-westminster-offshore-firms-wealth-paradise-papers

The international property empire of the dukes of Westminster pumped dividends worth millions of pounds into secretive companies in Bermuda and Panama, the Paradise Papers reveal.

Hugh Grosvenor became Britain’s youngest billionaire after his father’s death last year. Thanks to careful planning by his predecessors, the 26-year-old inherited the sprawling Grosvenor Group without having to pay the 40% death duties imposed on most British taxpayers.

A leak of 13.4m files, including documents from the archives of the offshore law firm Appleby, combined with public information from the UK companies register, has brought to light key parts of the structure used to manage the seventh duke’s fortune – estimated at £9.5bn in the Sunday Times rich list.

What are the Paradise Papers?

The Paradise Papers is a special investigation by the Guardian and 95 media partners worldwide into a leak of 13.4m files from two offshore service providers and 19 tax havens’ company registries. The files reveal the offshore financial affairs of some of the world’s biggest multinational companies and richest individuals, and set out the myriad ways in which tax can be avoided using artificial structures

They reveal for the first time the names, settlors and creation dates of the five UK trusts that have been used, for generations, to keep in the hands of a single family an estate that includes much of Belgravia and Mayfair in London, 165,000 acres of British countryside, hundreds of developments in North America, Australia and Hong Kong, and an island in Vancouver.

The trusts established by successive dukes to control Grosvenor are UK resident and subject to British tax – they pay a 6% charge on the value of many of their assets every 10 years. Assets worth £600m belonging directly to the 6th Duke, which were not held in trust, were inherited by his wife exempt from tax, as is normal for married couples. Death duties will be payable in the UK when her children inherit.

But the papers show that not all the family’s wealth was managed onshore. Until 1999, about half of the shares in a subsidiary that ran Grosvenor’s North American and Australian operations were controlled by tax haven companies.

Managed from Canada, the international wing of Grosvenor was created in 1953 when the estate made its first big expansion outside Britain by acquiring the 485-hectare Annacis Island in the middle of the Fraser river in Vancouver.

By the turn of the century, Grosvenor International Holdings Ltd (GIHL) had assets worth more than C$1bn (£600m), with 42% of its shares held by screen companies in Bermuda and Panama.

Vesta Ltd, incorporated in Bermuda in 1964, controlled Trumpet Company Ltd, another Bermuda company, which in turn held shares in GIHL. Alongside it was a parallel Panama structure: Nakar Holding SA, incorporated in 1977, owned shares in Compact International Inc, which in turn held part of GIHL.

The identities of the owners of these four companies have never been publicly disclosed by Grosvenor. However, Appleby’s internal database listed Vesta and Trumpet as belonging to the “Grosvenor Family Trust”.

Grosvenor’s annual reports show millions in payments collected in Panama and Bermuda: a combined £1m in 1999, direct from GIHL, and a similar sum the year before. Eventually, the offshore companies swapped their shares in GIHL for a 6.5% holding in the overall Grosvenor Group, collecting £3.7m over a seven-year period.

In March 2007, Grosvenor announced it was buying out Vesta and Nakar for £40m. The reason given was to “better align the shareholders’ interests with the group’s activities”. The companies were dissolved later that year.

A spokesman for the Grosvenor estate said: “Two small overseas trusts were established over 50 years ago, when it was accepted common practice to facilitate the acquisitions of some non-UK assets. No family member has received any benefit derived from these but, as UK residents, if they ever did then they would be fully liable to tax in this country.

“Our policy is to uphold the highest standards of business practice. We are careful to ensure that our ownership of overseas property is through vehicles incorporated in the same country as the asset. Where the group occasionally has entities in offshore locations, it is typically as a result of the requirements of joint-venture partners.”

The papers reveal a number of other offshore entities, some of which held investments in Asia. By 2009, the sixth duke’s trustees appear to have become wary of transacting too much of his business via tax havens.

That year, a member of the Appleby marketing team visited Jeremy Moore, the head of tax at Grosvenor Group, and another colleague. He took a few notes on their conversation. Grosvenor liked working with the firm but was wary of giving it too much to do. Appleby’s officer noted: “They do not have too many offshore holdings as they have to be very careful reputationally, as the property group is owned by trusts for the Duke of Westminster’s family.”

Documents from 2012 show Grosvenor’s shares were held by five trusts and by the sixth Duke of Westminster in his name. The oldest trust, simply referred to as ADWSLF in the data, was settled, or created, in 1953 by the second duke upon his death. The family’s enthusiasm for trusts may be explained by the fact that death duties of £17m swallowed much of the second duke’s £25m fortune.

The next oldest was the Fourth Duke of Westminster’s Settlement, which dates from 1964, three years before his death.

There is a Fifth Duke of Westminster’s Settlement, created in 1965, and the sixth duke, who died last year, created two more. The first was settled in 1971, the second in 1974. His will, published recently, suggests he created yet more trusts before his death.

The tax advantages of UK trusts such as these have been gradually whittled away. Since 1984, they have been subject to a 10-yearly tax charge, although there are exemptions for agricultural land and trading businesses.

Nimesh Shah, a partner at the accountants Blick Rothenberg, said: “Nowadays, trusts are used for a variety of reasons and tax is only one of those reasons. These trusts are about trying to keep control of the assets within the family unit.”

There is no public register listing the names, beneficiaries or holdings of any UK trusts, despite the fact such vehicles control vast tracts of land and property in Britain. HMRC has a register of trusts that pay tax, but this is not available to the public. In Europe, MEPs have been pushing for each member state to improve transparency by introducing public registers of trusts. The papers reveal how reluctant Grosvenor employees were to share trust details.

On one occasion, when tasked with setting up a Bermuda company in 1999, Grosvenor representatives asked Appleby to “seek dispensation” from the normal rules for declaring who the trust beneficiaries were.

The information was required by the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) before the company could be incorporated. Because the Bermuda company was to be controlled by trusts, Appleby would need to follow standard procedure and disclose the names of their beneficiaries and other basic information to the regulator.

Grosvenor did not want to share this data. In a fax dated 9 November, Appleby promised to “revert to the BMA to determine what they will give in on”, saying it had already obtained from the BMA that “they have indicated they will not require a personal declaration from the duke”.

The Bermuda entity, eventually called Grosvenor Land Property Fund Ltd, would go on to invest $30m in developing luxury homes in some of Hong Kong’s most desirable neighbourhoods, in a joint venture with another wealthy family, the Keswicks, through their Jardine Matheson Group.

The man from Appleby warned that “it raises ‘alarm bells’ when persons decline to disclose such information fully” and disclosure of ownership was a longstanding policy “designed to preserve Bermuda’s relatively clean image in the offshore world”.

He then proposed an unusual arrangement: “Would it make a difference if the information requested was placed in a sealed envelope and marked for the eyes of the CEO of the BMA only so that such information does not pass through the hands of intermediaries such as ourselves?”

The Grosvenor spokesman said, after checking the records, no evidence had been found “to suggest that the trustees asked for any such dispensation from the Bermuda Monetary Authority in 1999”. He said investors in the property fund would have paid tax in their own countries and the use of jurisdictions such as Bermuda was common for these types of funds, in order to avoid investors being taxed twice.

The information supplied, whatever it was, appears to have satisfied the Bermuda authorities, because the company was successfully incorporated on 16 December.

The seven dukes

First duke: 1825-1899. Hugh Lupus Grosvenor was MP for Chester and died the richest man in Britain.

Second duke: 1879-1953. Hugh Richard Arthur Grosvenor, grandson of the first duke, was known to family and friends as Bendor and was a lover of Coco Chanel. He left no son.

Third duke: 1894-1963. William Grosvenor was brain damaged at birth, and died unmarried and childless.

Fourth duke: 1907-1967. Gerald Hugh Grosvenor, cousin of the second duke, left no son.

Fifth duke: 1910-1979. Robert George Grosvenor, brother of the fourth Duke, lived in Northern Ireland at Ely Lodge on an island in the middle of Lough Erne.

Sixth duke: 1951 to 9 August 2016. Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, son of the fifth duke, mentor to Prince William, served in the Territorial Army for 40 years.

Seventh duke: born 1991. Hugh Richard Louis Grosvenor is Britain’s youngest billionaire.

From a dowry of swamp land to a multi-BILLION pound property portfolio: How Duke of Westminster’s family business started with a 17th century marriage and turned 300 acres of bog into an empire 

Marion Shoard – Power In The Land (1987) – LWT production for Channel 4

 

Marion Shoard was born in the west of Cornwall in 1949 and spent most of her childhood in Ramsgate, East Kent. She read zoology at Oxford University and, in order to work in countryside conservation, spent two years at the then Kingston-upon-Thames Polytechnic, studying town and country planning. http://www.marionshoard.co.uk/About-Marion-Shoard

She then worked for four years at the national office of the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), campaigning in topics ranging from national parks to forestry, and rural public transport to wildlife conservation. However, she had become more and more convinced that the main threat to the beauty and diversity of England’s countryside was the expansion and intensification of agriculture and, with the help of a grant from the Sidney Perry Foundation, she left CPRE to research and write The Theft of the Countryside (1980).

This book struck a chord with the public and sparked off a lively debate, with thirty letters published in The Times, for example. During the following few years she wrote articles and gave talks on the book’s theme, lobbied on rural issues in Parliament and helped set up countryside action groups. The Theft of the Countryside included proposals to establish new national parks in lowland England.

A second book, This Land is Our Land (1987), examined the history of the relationship between landowners and the landless, and suggested it should be placed on a new footing. This book also attracted attention. Channel 4 Documentary: Power In Land I presented a one-hour documentary on its subject matter made by London Weekend Television for Channel 4 and called Power in the Land. During the next few years, she wrote numerous articles and gave many talks about a wide range of rural issues. She also taught countryside planning and land management to students at universities, including Reading and University College London. Gaia Books reissued This Land is Our Land, expanded and updated, as a Gaia Classic in 1997.

One element of the arrangements she had put forward in This Land is Our Land was the replacement of the UK’s trespass régime with a general right of public access to the countryside, providing much greater freedom to roam.

With the help of grants from the Nuffield Foundation and The Leverhulme Trust, she set to work out how such a right could operate on the ground, after making trips to Scandinavia, France and Germany to see for myself the very different access systems operating in those countries. Her conclusions on access were published in A Right to Roam (1999), which was acclaimed as Environment Book of the Year in 2000 by the Outdoor Writers Guild.

She has recently supported Jean Perraton’s call for a right to swim in inland waters in the UK, through penning the foreword to her book Swimming against the Stream: Reclaiming Lakes and Rivers for People to Enjoy Swimming against the Stream: Reclaiming Lakes and Rivers for People to Enjoy.

Her activities in the environment sphere were profiled in two articles which you can read here: The Essential Marion Shoard The Essential Marion Shoard by travel writer Jim Perrin Accessing All Areas Countryside Access by environment journalist Caron Lipman.

What next for young people in Zimbabwe’s land reform areas?

What next for young people in Zimbabwe’s land reform areas?

As discussed in the blog series earlier this year, we have been investigating inter-generational questions in land reform areas. 17 years on, young people born after the land reform are leaving school, and thinking about what next? Will this be farming, or other occupations? In the context of a declining economy what prospects are there?

We wanted to hear from those currently in secondary school (Form IV, mostly aged between 16 and 18) and undertook an exercise with school students asking two questions in sequence: What do you think you will be doing in 20 years’ time? And, what are the constraints to getting there?

It was a fascinating set of interactions held in three schools in our study areas – in high potential Mvurwi, in dryland Wondedzo near Masvingo and in the deep Lowveld in Chikombedzi. We used the Q sort methodology, which analyses subjective viewpoints using both qualitative and quantitative methods. A first step is to decide on the statements that are going to be sorted. We did this in a separate exercise with a number of young people and ended up with 49 statements (a list of envisaged occupations) related to the first question and 36 statements (on constraints) for the second question. You can have a look at what young people chose as the full set for sorting, here and here.

In the Q sort sessions,  participants are asked to rank their opinions along a continuum from agree to disagree against a set of statements about a subject. In the end we had 61 valid responses across the sites, with 39 males and 22 females. The Q sort method has been used in several other studies on youth and agriculture in Ghana, including exploring perspectives on desirable work and on young people’s perspectives on farming. We wanted to see if the setting of land reform areas in Zimbabwe threw up different results.

The statistical analysis of the sorts (using the PQMethod software – thanks to Jim Sumberg for helping navigate this) revealed a number of factors for both questions, differentiated by gender but combining all the schools. The qualitative interpretation exploring what these factors mean is the interesting part of the analysis, and is hugely revealing on how young people imagine their futures, and what constraints they perceive as being in the way. This blog focuses on the question: “what do you think you’ll be doing in 20 years’ time?”, preliminary results of which were discussed before. The next blog focuses on the constraints.

Imagined futures

The analysis of the statements linked to the factors highlighted some potential narratives around each, including the role of agriculture. Some very brief summaries of these narratives are presented below. For male students, three factors emerge from the statistical analysis:

  • Factor 1 focuses on a future life in professional jobs, with mentions of being a lawyer, doctor, teacher, solider and nurse characterising this group. Some saw this happening outside Zimbabwe, including ‘working in the UK’. Imagined futures focused on agriculture were in management and business roles, such as being an irrigation dealer or an owner of an agricultural-related business, with less emphasis on actually producing.
  • Factor 2 focuses on being self-employed and owning a business. Being a bottle store owner was characteristic of this clustering. Commercial farming and agricultural marketing/input supply jobs were identified as important.
  • Factor 3 relates to wage work, and a number relatively low-skilled jobs, including being a conductor, driver, working in a factory. Given the employment situation in Zimbabwe currently, some in this group envisaged themselves working in South Africa. Agriculture was more prominent in characterising this factor, and involved a number of business ‘projects’, including vegetable gardening, poultry production, combining with off-farm wage work.

A rather different set of factors emerged amongst female students. Again, three are identified. These are:

  • Factor 1 highlights business ownership and entrepreneurship. The factor included mention of butchery, grocery, grinding mill ownership for example. This factor was also associated with professional jobs (but few cases), including mention of careers as lawyers and in the police service. Where agriculture was mentioned, if focused on a job, as an input supply dealer or an irrigation dealer, but also production for the market, with agriculture as a business, including commercial vegetable and tobacco production.
  • Factor 2 focuses on piecework – the casual sale of labour – as well as the trading of vegetables, food and clothes. By contrast to Factor 1, these are very low income options, but maybe a realistic vision for many. Some in this cluster combined these choices with a hope of escape, where fortunes would be made, and there were mentions of ‘working in the UK’ and ‘politician’ (in the Zimbabwe context perhaps seen as a route to patronage and the spoils of corruption). Engagement in agriculture was through markets and trading, selling vegetables and food, for example, but less focused on direct production.
  • Factor 3 by contrast emphasised service jobs (including hairdressing and tourism) and care (nurse, being a preacher, looking after kids). For this factor, agriculture was not part of an imagined future at all it seemed.

Future trajectories

As previous blogs have shown, young people’s imagined futures do not always pan out. The option of becoming a lawyer or doctor or migrating to the UK, for example, are available to very few. The conditions of schooling in the land reform areas are poor, and the opportunities for upward mobility constrained, perhaps especially so given the declining economic conditions in Zimbabwe more generally. Escape is an option, and migration to South Africa, the UK and elsewhere have been significant in the past, but again options are limited, and xenophobia and violence a concern in South Africa.

So it is not surprising that many young people imagine getting on through self-employment, piecework and small-scale businesses at home. Where agriculture is seen as central to future livelihoods, it is as a business, or through engagement with markets. Some saw themselves as focused commercial producers (vegetables and tobacco, mostly), but this was not a dominant theme in any factor. While in practice many young people end up focusing on agriculture ‘projects’ at home, on their parents’ or in-laws’ fields, this is not central to their future imaginaries.

The factors also differed by gender. While both male and female students mentioned professional careers, owning businesses and so on, it was noticeable that the male sorters were more aspirational, imagining futures in the professions or owning lucrative businesses. The female students by contrast had generally set lower targets, with self-employment and entrepreneurship being associated with piecework and trading, as well as owning a stores or grinding mills. Engaging with agriculture is also much less emphasised among women compared to men, who saw some options of commercial agricultural production, as well as engaging in agriculture-related businesses. Significantly both male and female sorters highlighted what Henry Bernstein would call the ‘fragmented classes of labour’, the array of informal, fragile and low paid jobs, some including wage work, but many simply casual piecework, perhaps combined with some part-time agriculture. For many this is, even now, envisaged as the future.

In the discussions that followed the sorts, the participants were very sanguine about the constraints, and these certainly affected their choices. The question was purposely focused on an ‘imagined self’ – what do you think you will doing in 20 years? – rather than simply open-ended aspirations, where the usual list of footballers, pop stars, astronauts and so on get added.

Constraints impinging on futures are very real for young people in Zimbabwe, creating stress and anxiety and a resort to drink and drugs for some. The post-land reform intergenerational question is simply not being addressed by policy, development programming or government services. The next blog, focuses on the array of constraints young people identified, and explores the implications.

This post was written by Ian Scoones and first appeared on Zimbabweland

a landrights campaign for Britain

%d bloggers like this: