The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has just released housing data from the 2021 census for England and Wales compared with 2011.

This seems to have provoked a frenzy of similar local media reports across the country, including our own. All seem to take the same quote from the Institute for Policy Research. This picks up on an increase of 8% in the number of unoccupied houses in England to argue that the Government should look again at policies to curb or control holiday homes, short-term lets, and empty homes; and to build millions more homes.

Although the ONS comparison shows an increase in unoccupied dwelling in the “South West”. There has been little change within Devon. 

In Devon the picture is one of greater variations between districts than over time. 

The highest unoccupied rates in Devon are in North Devon (12%) and South Hams (15%). These coincide with those districts reporting greatest  problems with housing affordability. Second homes are likely to be a factor but not the only one. The unoccupied rate for East Devon is 8%. Second Homes in East Devon amount to 4% so can only account for half of the unoccupied total.

Caveat: Census 2021 was carried out during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, some people, for example overseas students or those privately renting, may have moved back in with family members leaving more unoccupied dwellings. [Seems to affected the Exeter numbers].

Nationally, the pattern of highest unoccupied rates fall perhaps where you might expect them to: in the tourist hotspots, and around the coast.

The lack of affordable homes is a major concern. It is a complex subject and Owl will address this in greater depth later, laying out the  historic failure of Tory administrations at local and national level to deliver the affordable housing we need.

This will be a challenge to the Tory election pledge 4 claim: “We will work to ensure that there are sufficient affordable homes that our community requires” given that unfettered development has been their driving philosophy for a couple of decades.

Meanwhile, Owl thinks it a bit of a stretch to argue from these figures that our problems will be solved by building millions more houses. 

NATURE IN CRISIS  – Letter in the Times – www.thetimes.co.uk

Sir, Wild Isles and the “David Attenborough” effect helped Britain to fall back in love with the nature on our doorstep. But nature is in crisis, and we need collective action to protect and restore it, including a “crisis response” for nature from the government — which is failing to act with the urgency and scale needed.

The government’s new water plan will allow intensive farms to continue to pollute our water and choke the life out of our beautiful English rivers. And its painfully low investment in farm payments in England will not help farmers to put in place what is needed. Meanwhile, our environmental protections are threatened by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.

We know the public are worried about nature and that there is a demand for change: any party that wants to win the next general election must increase its ambition and action on nature at home and abroad, including investing in the power of nature to fight climate change and turning rhetoric to reality on Cop15 ambitions. Only then can we hope to heed Sir David’s wake-up call and save our wild isles.

Hilary McGrady, director-general, National Trust; Beccy Speight, CEO, RSPB; Tanya Steele, CEO, WWF (UK)

“This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.”

Opposition parties have called on Downing Street to provide answers over Rishi Sunak’s family financial interests as the Guardian discovered that previous ministerial registers made no mention of his wife’s stake in a childcare firm, even though it began in 2019.

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com 

The prime minister could be ordered to apologise to the House of Commons if an inquiry announced on Monday into his declarations about the investment finds he breached the code of conduct for MPs.

Companies House records show Akshata Murty first took a stake in Koru Kids, one of six childcare companies that stand to benefit from a policy announcement in last month’s budget, in March 2019, when she held 20,000 shares in the firm.

While the register of ministerial interests has not been updated for nearly a year following the resignation of Boris Johnson’s adviser on interests, the six registers published since March 2019, when Murty took the stake, have no mention of it.

The first of these does not refer to Murty at all, while the five subsequent versions, the last of which was published in May 2022, says only that Sunak’s wife “owns a venture capitalist investment company, Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd”.

The records for Koru Kids show Murty owns the shares in her name, not that of the investment company. The most recent records show she still has 20,000 shares.

Downing Street has said it cannot comment while the inquiry is under way, beyond reiterating that the shareholding had been “transparently declared as a ministerial interest”.

Unlike the parallel register of MPs’ interests, not every interest declared by ministers to the relevant civil service head of their department is publicly listed, as it is up to the adviser on ministers’ interests, who is now Laurie Magnus, to decide whether this is necessary.

It is therefore possible that Sunak declared the shareholding in Koru Kids but that Mangus’s predecessors, Christopher Geidt and Alex Allan, who between them held the role until June last year, thought it did not need to be published.

Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, said: “Rishi Sunak should have declared his financial interests as a minister, chancellor and prime minister, as is required by his own ministerial code. But with no list of interests for nearly a year, his failure to come clean on what he declared gives the impression he’s got something to hide.

“He could clear it up by simply saying when and how he has declared these potential conflicts of interest and whether steps have been taken to manage them in line with the code.”

Daisy Cooper, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, called for the rules to be changed and for Sunak to provide clarity.

“Rishi Sunak needs to come before parliament and explain why this wasn’t featured in the previous registers of ministerial interests,” she said. “It is absurd that the rules mean that government ministers can currently get away with publicly declaring less than a backbench MP.

“We need a total overhaul of the system, to ensure that the ministerial register of interests is regularly published and has more rigorous standards. The public has a right to know.”

One difficulty for Sunak is that as part of his inquiry, the standards commissioner, Daniel Greenberg, is expected to look into whether the prime minister should have declared the interest when questioned by a committee of MPs last month, where the rules are stricter than for registering interests.

Appearing before the liaison committee on 28 March, Sunak was asked by the Labour MP Catherine McKinnell about a proposed pilot scheme to incentivise people to become childminders, with Koru Kids among six private childcare providers involved.

When McKinnell asked Sunak whether he had anything to declare in relation to the scheme, he replied: “No, all my disclosures are declared in the normal way.”

The MPs’ code of conduct states that not only must members be “open and frank” in declaring interests, but mentioning a declaration without explaining what it is “will not suffice on its own”.

If Greenberg finds Sunak should have been more open with the liaison committee, there is the option of “rectification”, where he admits fault and amends the record.

However, if the prime minister refuses this, or if Greenberg decides he has not been properly transparent, Sunak’s case could be referred to the standards committee, made up of MPs and lay members, for punishment.

A suspension from the Commons seems very unlikely – of 66 MPs suspended since 1949, only one had this happen because of a non-declaration of interests, the Conservative MP John Browne in 1990. But it is possible Sunak could be ordered to apologise.

actions.goodlawproject.org

Over a year of hard work has paid off today. The High Court has ruled that the Government’s operation of a fast-track VIP lane for awarding lucrative PPE contracts to those with political connections was unlawful. 

In a challenge brought by Good Law Project and EveryDoctor to the behind closed door VIP lane worth billions of pounds, the Court found:

“the Claimants have established that operation of the High Priority Lane was in breach of the obligation of equal treatment… the illegality is marked by this judgment.” (§512)

The Judge agreed the VIP lane conferred preferential treatment on bids: it sped up the process, which meant offers were considered sooner in a process where timing was critical, and VIPs’ hands were held through the process. She said: 

“offers that were introduced through the Senior Referrers received earlier consideration at the outset of the process. The High Priority Lane Team was better resourced and able to respond to such offers on the same day that they arrived”. (§395)

The Court found the Government allocated offers to the VIP lane on a “flawed basis” (§396) and did not properly prioritise bids: 

“there is evidence that opportunities were treated as high priority even where there were no objectively justifiable grounds for expediting the offer.” (§383).

The Court noted that the overwhelming majority by value of the product supplied by Pestfix and Ayanda could not be used in the NHS. 

An independent investigation by the BBC has also revealed issues with the product supplied by Clandeboye which were not disclosed to the High Court. Good Law Project believes that the Government misled the Court and is in correspondence with lawyers for the Secretary of State.

The Judge found that, even though Pestfix and Ayanda received unlawful preferential treatment via the VIP lane, they would likely have been awarded contracts anyway. The Judge also refused to allow publication of how much money was wasted by the Government’s failure to carry out technical assurance on the PPE supplied by Pestfix and Ayanda. Good Law Project is considering the wider implications of these aspects of the ruling and next steps.

We first revealed the red carpet-to-riches VIP lane for those with political connections in October 2020. Since then, we have fought to reveal details of those who benefited, and at whose request – while the Government fought to conceal them.

Never again should any Government treat a public health crisis as an opportunity to enrich its associates and donors at public expense.

Thank you for your trust in us, and your continued support of this case over 18 long months. Without you, this simply wouldn’t have been possible.

We also want to express our deep gratitude to our expert legal team on this case: Rook Irwin Sweeney and Jason Coppel QC, Patrick Halliday and Zac Sammour of 11KBW. They have worked tirelessly on this case and we hugely appreciate their efforts.

---

You can read the full judgment from the High Court here.