| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 Dec 2002 : Column 1077—continued
Mr. Viggers: Having shot down an RAF Meteor target from Llanbedr in 1968, I pay tribute to the concerned manner in which the hon. Gentleman makes his case. I understand that, after such a long period of dedicated service, the work force would feel deeply about the closure of the station.
Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It would clearly be a great shame to close the station and I cannot understand why the Ministry of Defence is considering mothballing it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is on the coast and does not affect populous areas. It has been run excellently over the years and is now doomed to close in 2004 under a
procedure that is morally and possibly legally questionable. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support and for his comments based on his experience. I am no expert—I have never shot anything down.
Mr. Llwyd: Not while defending them, I hope.
Jindivik has a capability for simultaneous flight of multiple targets. The information that QinetiQ staff have witnessed four target operations by Mirach is spurious. Jindivik will be replaced not by a better model, but by one that has yet to be proven. Yet the Ministry of Defence is apparently hell bent on doing that. Almost the whole cost of Llanbedr airfield has been allocated to Jindivik. Charges to the Air Force and the Army for their use of the facilities are well below the proportionate rate. For example, RAF Valley Hawks are charged significantly less per aircraft movement at Llanbedr than at RAF Valley or RAF Mona. Again, that gives the impression that there has been a conspiracy to close down the place for some time. If it transpired that use by the Air Force in Valley required Llanbedr to be kept open, the airfield operation costs would pass to them. The overall saving to the Ministry of Defence would be much smaller—more than half the savings might not be achieved.
I do not want to go into further detail this afternoon. Suffice it to say that I am worried about the work force. As the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) confirmed, they are dedicated and they deserve better treatment. I call on the Government, even at this late stage, to reconsider the short-termism and the odd, questionable procedure that has been adopted to mothball an airfield that could be considerably useful not only to the military but to the civil authorities. That makes no sense in the short, medium or long term. I urge the Government to reconsider.
I extend the compliments of the season to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to all hon. Members, but I remind the House that, as a direct result of the Ministry of Defence's conduct, many people in my constituency will not have a happy Christmas.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that time is running on and I fear that some hon. Members will not be able to speak. It would therefore be helpful if hon. Members could make their remarks as brief as possible so that not too many people are disappointed.
5.18 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): I shall be brief. I want to raise two issues: one involves my constituency and the other is a national matter. The constituency issue concerns the way in which public money has been used on a portfolio of roughly 3,000 properties. I must relate a little of the history so that hon. Members can understand the point that I am making.
The properties constitute an estate that was built by a company called Warner Estates probably 100 years ago. For many years, it acted as a private landlord and was regarded as fairly philanthropic. It gradually decided to
get out of the rented market and started to sell the properties, leasehold so that by about 1998, approximately three quarters were leasehold and a quarter were tenanted.Late in 2000, the company decided to dispose of those properties. At that point, negotiations went on, which involved Circle 33 housing group. The focus was on the quarter of the properties that were tenanted or empty, because, quite clearly, if a social landlord could acquire those properties, that would be useful in an area with a rented housing shortage. All those who had the matter raised with them, including the local authority and me, thought that a sensible way to proceed.
In addition to the tenanted properties, however, there were about 2,000 leasehold properties and about another 300 properties involving two flats—one leasehold as well as one still tenanted—within a building. There were negotiations with Circle 33. Warner Estates had a subsidiary company called Benchlevel, which had a further subsidiary called Finalbrief. Warner Estates stripped out all the assets from the two subsidiaries and transferred all the freeholds to the ownership of Benchlevel.
Circle 33 then acquired the share capital of Benchlevel. In turn, it split the properties and took all the leasehold properties into the further subsidiary, Finalbrief. The share capital of Finalbrief was sold on to a company called Freehold Managers (Nominees) Ltd., in which all the shareholders were directors of HSBC Trust Corporation, which is based in the Isle of Man.
The question that arose involved the reason for using that mechanism to transfer the properties. The freeholds were transferred between companies that had been associated with one another for a number of years and the share capital of those companies was sold, not the freeholds. So, every single leaseholder was unable to apply the right of first refusal to buy their freehold, which they would have been able to do if the freeholds were being sold between the companies. That is why this mechanism was adopted.
Circle 33 said to me, XWe have done that because Warner Estates insisted on selling the portfolio as a whole, and of course it moved the properties to its subsidiary before we bought them." That may be so, but I find it difficult to believe that all that was not thought out beforehand. Shell companies were created, which were then transferred along with the properties.
A lot of other issues arose involving the failure of Circle 33 to give leaseholders information on what was happening, the ownership of the freeholds and problems with the companies that had become the new owners. Many of those we can now solve, however, partly because of the good leasehold reform legislation that the House passed last summer, which gives leaseholders many more rights.
The central issue that concerns me is that public money—Housing Corporation money was involved in funding Circle 33's acquisition of those properties—has been used to fund that purchase through mechanisms that were deliberately engineered to prevent leaseholders from being able to exercise the right to first refusal of purchase of the freehold. Nothing illegal has
been done, but there has been deliberate engineering to achieve that outcome, which causes me considerable concern. That is not how public money should be used through a social landlord.A lot of problems remain. Those properties have been in place for many years. In all the years that I have been involved in politics in Waltham Forest, I have received very few complaints from Warner Estates leaseholders or tenants. Within 18 months of a social landlord taking them over, we have packed public meetings attended by several hundred people who are all concerned about what has been happening to their properties. The matter should be looked at by Ministers who were involved in some of the decisions at the beginning, when approval was given to Housing Corporation money being used in such a way.
Let me now raise a national issue that is likely to affect many Members early in the new year. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 contains a provision, which will come into force on 8 January, denying people applying for asylum in-country any support unless the National Asylum Support Service is convinced that they can produce a good reason for not having applied at the port of entry. Thousands of people could be destitute as a result, with no possibility of an appeal—but there will of course be appeals, because those denied support will end up in our advice surgeries.
I do not want to argue the case as to whether we should have acted as we did because I made my views clear when we were debating the Bill, but a good many questions were raised at the time—I raised some of them with the Home Secretary—about the way in which the scheme would operate, what criteria would be used to decide whether someone had waited too long before making an application, and what was meant by Xspecial needs". The Act says that those with special needs will be exempt from the provision. What will happen if someone has a health problem? What will happen to a woman who is pregnant? I was told that we would be given the information; indeed, a Minister in the House of Lords suggested that codes of guidance might be issued. Nothing has been issued so far, however.
Mr. Gardiner: Are not those who can show that their destitution is a result of pregnancy, age or illness, including mental illness, specifically covered by the National Assistance Act 1948? Did not a recent court case prove that?
Mr. Gerrard: Some people will still be able to go to a local authority and cite that Act, but local authorities themselves will have to decide whether the Act covers those people. We need codes of guidance and criteria so that local authorities know where they stand, non-governmental organisations know where they stand, and we know where we stand when people turn up at our surgeries—as they undoubtedly will when they have been refused support by the NASS. We need to know the rules of the game.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will draw that problem to the Home Secretary's attention. As I have said, from 8 January it is likely to affect many Members of Parliament.
I join others, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in offering you and the staff of the House the compliments of the season.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |