Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Bacon and Mark Spencer

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady will be aware that this year we have granted an extra 15,000 visas through the seasonal agricultural worker scheme. We have also committed to those people being guaranteed a minimum of 34 hours a week, paid at the national minimum wage. There is also the option of an extra 10,000 visas if the industry requires them. We will continue to monitor, with the industry, how the scheme is working and to support the farmers who require that labour.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

One of the most important roles for rural farmers is their ability to offer up land for affordable housing for rural people. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the new housing Minister about the more vigorous implementation of the Self-build and Custom House- building Act 2015—and if he has not yet had any, when does he plan to do so?

[Mark Spencer]

My hon. Friend is very astute at getting his pet topic into DEFRA questions; I pay tribute to the work he has done on self-build. Of course, we always have discussions with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, whose responsibility it is, about land use and we will be producing a land use framework later this year.

Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Bill

Debate between Richard Bacon and Mark Spencer

Friday 24th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bacon]

My hon. Friend has a good point. The Isle of Wight is one of the most beautiful parts of the country. If we had the north American approach of zoning, which is much harder-edged and makes it absolutely clear whether somewhere can ever be built on, we might make more progress. That is probably outwith the terms of the debate, as would be a long discussion of the green belt, but it is an important point because it relates to people’s deep instincts about land use. Those instincts are sound in many ways, because we want to protect beautiful countryside. As a representative of a rural area with a lot of farmers, I should say that we also want to keep land to grow food on.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I trust that my hon. Friend recognises that to a developer, the choice between developing a brownfield site, which may have problems of industrial waste or contamination, and developing a greenfield site, which carries none of that extra development cost, makes them much more likely to want to pursue a greenfield or green belt option rather than a more challenging industrial brownfield option.

[Mr Bacon]

I completely take my hon. Friend’s point. I suppose I would reply, with the Irishman, “I wouldn’t have started from here”, but the developer is presented with the narrow choice that my hon. Friend describes. I should say in passing that one event that I attended at our party conference featured someone from the London assembly who was trying to get some brownfield sites in London made available for housing. They kept on encountering planners who said, “Hands off our strategic industrial land. We need to keep some brownfield land.”

The argument is complex and nuanced, and my hon. Friend is right about the costs of dealing with contaminated land, but in a more fluid and well-functioning world, the responsibilities that sit within the public realm for making land available for use and providing services for it would work differently. In Victorian times, the local councils or corporations—those great Victorian institutions—took it upon themselves to build the infrastructure they needed, such as roads and sewers. The fact that they did that so well is the reason why it has lasted so long and why we now have 100-year-old sewers that need to be replaced through private finance initiative schemes. The only reason they have lasted so long is that the Victorians did such a good job. They went into the market and issued bonds, and they borrowed money. The Bolton Corporation, the Corporation of Birmingham and other great Victorian civic institutions, from when local authorities had a bit of self-respect, did great work and provided the environment in which private individuals could build. Many splendid developments were built, quite dense and quite high, and we can see many still standing in London and our other great cities.

The problem that we have now is that strategic land promotion is, in a way, done by the wrong people. I will come on to the issue of volume house builders, but I will mention them now since my hon. Friend has triggered the point. I do not blame volume house builders for acting in a rational manner, and people who are surprised that they construct dwellings only when it is profitable to do so need to wake up and smell the coffee. Of course that is how they will behave, and we cannot be in the slightest bit surprised. The point is not so much that we encourage them to do a quick job and get out, leading to buildings of substandard quality and durability and poor longevity, but that we require them to do that. They are forced to act in a deeply sub-optimal way in a flawed system. We need a much more patient approach to the employment of the capital that is needed.

We can look at some of the ancient estates that undertook construction years ago, including in London, and still own the properties that were built, or at least the freehold to them, many decades or hundreds of years later. One is the Duchy of Cornwall—there are not that many 600-year-old private ducal estates with the explicit purpose of providing an income for the heir to the throne, but it has been doing its job quite well for 600 years.

[Mr Spencer]

Surely the planning authority is the ultimate authority, and local authorities should be much more robust in forcing developers to consider brownfield sites before they allow greenfield sites even to be considered. I do not know whether my hon. Friend’s Bill would assist in any way in freeing up brownfield sites first.

[Mr Bacon]

My Bill is silent on brownfield sites, but the Minister might have something to say about them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bacon]

I am glad the hon. Lady says that, and I look forward to reading it with interest.

I was talking to Shelter at a meeting and trying to distil my policy. I have not come to this as a housing expert, but I look at the world and think that if we had got things right there would not be a problem, there would be an equilibrium between supply and demand, and I would not have to stand here in the first place. I distilled my policy down to six words: everyone should have somewhere to live. That is it; that’s what I know. More than that I do not know, and the rest in some ways is details. We must ensure that everyone has somewhere to live, and at the moment they do not. I think we need every available shoulder pushing on that wheel. Of course, if a big rock is in front of the wheel we need to move it out of the way, but I am up for any idea that increases the total supply of housing, particularly if it is done to the highest possible standard.

One simply cannot tell which parts of Poundbury are affordable housing. When they are pointed out, people look at them and think, “Phwoar—I’d like to live there.” They have no particular special status; people are taken off the local housing list like everywhere else, and Poundbury has its share of social problems. However, the shape of community that has been created does something to lessen some of those problems.

A YouGov survey two years ago indicated that 75% of people do not want to buy the product of the volume house builders which, as I said earlier, I think are acting rationally inside a systemically flawed system. One of the main constraints on supply is that the standard house models of the volume house builders are attractive to only a small proportion of the total numbers of would-be buyers in the population. That makes it difficult to get above an average of 2.6 sales per month per site. Where there is a custom-build approach—or, as I might venture to call it, a customer-build approach—they can get two, three or four times that level of performance.

There is a wonderful development—it is not an experiment; it has happened—in the Netherlands in Almere on the opposite side of the IJsselmeer from Amsterdam. Many, many dwellings were allowed—it now has 3,000—and most are self-build and custom build. When the volume house builders around the edge were basically in stasis and nobody was buying their dwellings, there was a hive of activity in the middle of that development because the building of houses was being treated as if customers mattered.

A colleague recently retailed to me the story he had been told about a former Conservative MP who had been on the board of a major house building company. The former MP had said, “I have been on the board of this big PLC house builder for eight years. We have talked about land acquisition, finance, buying other businesses, the supply chain, cost control, staffing levels and skills. The only thing we haven’t talked about is houses.”

The truth of the matter is that we do not really have a housing market. If we did, there would be enough houses for everyone. What we have is a land market—which is very tightly controlled—and volume house builders which have access to the open capital market act rationally: they build when it is profitable to do so and take out an insurance policy to cover the down side. A farmer who is getting 3.5 tonnes of winter barley from a field is very happy if someone gives him £4,000 a year for the next 10 years for an option to apply for planning permission to build houses on it one day. That may never happen, but the only entity that can afford to do that is a large, well capitalised house builder. Small house builders cannot possibly do that.

It is even worth a large house builder’s while to employ someone—at considerable expense—to work out how to remove a joist that costs £76 from a roof. It is worth the investment of thousands of pounds and a considerable amount of time to figure that out, because for 1,000 houses on one site it will save £76,000. For someone who builds 9,000 or 10,000 houses a year, it will save £750,000. Over 10 years, that will amount to £7.5 million. What business would not want to save such a sum? But then along comes the purchaser, accompanied by the sales agent who, for some strange reason, often drives a pink Fiat. The sales agent is trying to sell that rather pretty little shoebox, containing furniture that is manufactured to deceive the eye. The width of a double bed in most show homes is about 3 feet 11 inches or 4 feet. Furniture for show homes is not furniture that could be used: it is specifically designed to make the rooms look bigger. The prospective buyers, perhaps a husband and wife with a baby, say, “We are thinking of having another baby. Can we extend into the roof?” But they cannot do that because the design, to save that £76, makes that impossible. The whole thing would fall down.

In a customer-driven environment, from the beginning the customer would say, “This is what I want now, and this is what I may want in the future”, and the market would respond. Some mathematician has worked out that if someone buys a Mini Cooper from the factory in Oxford, there are 126,000 different permutations to choose from.

[Mr Spencer]

My hon. Friend mentioned the Duchy of Cornwall. The Prince of Wales is on record several times talking about UK architecture and the occasional carbuncles that it produces. If the market allows individual designs, someone’s aspirational design is likely to be someone else’s carbuncle. How will the Bill address that differential in taste and aspiration?

[Mr Bacon]

The vast majority of our built environment that is worth protecting was built before the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, when there was much less control on what could be done. Also, when people are spending their own money on assets, they are likely to do so in such a way that protects the value of those assets. Aesthetics vary: every beautiful Georgian terrace we see—except those that were built on green fields—was built on land that previously held a beautiful row of black and white cottages from the 14th or 15th century that was knocked down to make way.

Imagine a world in which people could go along to a site and the sales agent with the pink Fiat said, “Here are some choices for you. You might want a big plot or a small one. Your tastes might tend in the direction of very traditional architecture or of something very funky. If the former, you might want to think about these architects and builders. If you want something more contemporary, you might want to consider these architects and builders who have a lot of experience in that sector. We have some examples of work they have done earlier and we can attest to their quality.” That could be the normal approach, but at the moment it is anything but.

Interestingly, the UK is an outlier in this area. In Canada, Germany, France, Sweden and Ireland, self or custom build often accounts for more than 50% of the market. In Italy, it accounts for more than 60% and in tiny Austria it is 86%. In this country, self-build is still seen as an elite club that is open only to a small number of people. As Kevin McCloud has said, we build some of the poorest performing, most expensive and smallest homes in Europe. If someone wants a home with triple-glazed windows so that it costs nothing to heat, we have no suppliers who can supply that. I do not know anyone who would not like a house that cost nothing to heat, but triple-glazed windows are not available here, although they are in Germany. They should be available here, too.

[Mr Bacon]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said earlier, people go into planning with the most benign intentions, but they end up becoming the person who says no. They find that they do not like that and they leave. That means that those left in planning authorities can be the less imaginative and creative, who like exercising their little bit of power. I know someone in South Norfolk who built a house and he said that after his seventh attempt to get the gutter colour right, he told the planner to choose. But that person is employed by the taxpayer and should have better things to do. The people who work in local planning authorities are as much victims of the system as everyone else. Perhaps a quarter of them should not be there, but most of them would like to do a good job. They would like to have more ability to help their local communities properly in a true place-making way, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North describes.

The Government have done a lot in this area. The Budget provided £150 million for service plots, and the Government have announced a significant range of housing schemes in recent years—the local infrastructure fund, the Growing Places fund, the new homes bonus and Help to Buy, as well as the more recent starter homes money. The Minister can say more about those if he wants, but my point is not that nothing is happening. It is that it is not happening quickly enough. We need to make it happen quickly if we are to solve the housing needs of our people.

One crucial problem is that, because the supply has not been flowing properly, the cost of buying a house has risen considerably compared with the average income. It used to be three to four times income. In South Norfolk, it is now 8.2 times average income to buy the average dwelling, and it is the same in Harlow. In mid Suffolk, it is 8.6 times. These figures are from a “Home Truths” card for the east of England—the National Housing Federation has produced a card for each region of the country. In South Cambridgeshire, it is nine times average income, in St Albans 10.5 times, in Welwyn Hatfield 11.9 times and in Hertsmere it is 13.4 times. In a well functioning, flowing market that would not be the case.

In my view, the word “customer” should apply in the broadest possible sense. As I said, my policy is that everyone should have somewhere to live, but not everyone can afford to buy a house, and we need to recognise that. It follows that people without the money to buy a house should also be treated as customers. I want to see a world in which a person can say to a housing association, “I can’t afford to buy a house, but I am a human being and I don’t want to live in a ditch. I would like to have somewhere to live, and I understand that you provide housing for people like me”; and I want to see a world in which the housing association replies to such people or groups of people, “How can we help create something you want to live in and then rent it to you?” I know that can happen because it is happening now—tens of thousands of houses are being built this way across Germany and other parts of the continent—but not here. If we treat house building as if customers matter, we will go a long way towards solving the problem.

My humble Bill would require each local authority to keep a register of persons—individuals or associations of individuals—who are

“seeking to acquire serviced plots of land in the authority’s area in order to build houses for those individuals to occupy as homes.”

In the Bill, the word “house” includes a dwelling that forms part of a building, and “serviced plot of land” means

“a plot of land which satisfies such requirements about utilities and other matters as may be specified.”

For example, if a group of people got together to take over a derelict commercial building in an urban area, do it up and turn it into a series of dwellings, and if they got the co-operation of the local authority, that would fall within the scope of the Bill as a serviced plot.

Clause 1 identifies the relevant authorities that in each area would be responsible for observing the Bill: district councils, county councils in areas with no district councils, London borough councils, the Common Council of the City of London, the Council of the Isles of Scilly and other authorities, such as the Broads Authority, national parks and so on. The Government’s vanguard councils, with a bit of help and pump-priming money, are experimenting voluntarily with registers to see what is easiest and most cost-effective, and the last thing I want to do is place extra burdens on already overburdened councils.

[Mr Spencer]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case and is slowly winning me round. However, if there was a plot on which 10 houses were to be built, a section 106 agreement, as well as infrastructure for sewerage and top water, would be needed. How would the 10 individual purchasers arrive at an understanding to pay the section 106 money, the sewerage connection fees and other ongoing costs?

[Mr Bacon]

It could be done in lots of ways. I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he draws my attention to something I should have mentioned earlier. The long title of the Bill states that one of the purposes of the Bill is

“to allow volume house builders to include self-build and custom-build projects as contributing towards their affordable housing obligations, when”—

and for the avoidance of doubt, I should have written “and only when”—

“in partnership for this purpose with a Registered Landlord”.

There is no reference to that in the text of the Bill, and there is a reason for that. I had planned to suggest to volume house builders that they could do this too, but on advice, owing to concerns from the affordable housing sector, the Department for Communities and Local Government and others—particularly in the other place, there are many experts who have forgotten more about section 106 agreements than my hon. Friend or I will ever know—it became apparent that I would have been treading into deep waters unnecessarily and that much of what might be needed could be done by guidance and regulations from the Department. For a technical reason, however, the words about volume house builders in the long title have had to remain: this was the Bill that was presented, so I have to keep the long title on Second Reading. If it gets into Committee, however, I will move an amendment deleting those words so that the Bill is silent on the question of section 106 agreements and volume house builders—there is no definition of volume house builders in law anyway. There was much justified concern that this approach might have been open to abuse, and it was certainly not my intention to allow that.

In defence of volume house builders, whom I do not blame for behaving rationally, there are some—in particular, Mark Clare, chief executive of Barratt Developments—who are across this agenda and thinking broadly and deeply about what they can do to help. For example, Barratt is providing plots for local small builders alongside its big developments to encourage diversity and choice. I commend that approach tremendously. Barratt is a high-quality operation, and as it does that, more will follow. In their negotiations with big developers, local authorities could start discussing how volume house builders might incorporate that into their big developments, but I would rather it be done on a case-by-case basis—local authority by local authority—rather than have us tell them from above what has to happen. That is not likely to work.

Clause 1 deals with the establishment, maintenance and promotion of the register, and clause 2 deals with the duty as regards the register. It states that local authorities, having established the register, must have regard to it in bringing forward their housing plans. The meaning of “have regard to” will vary enormously. What is appropriate for the London boroughs of Hammersmith or Newham, depending on conditions and the amount of land available, will be very different from what is appropriate for a national park, which is also a local authority, for a suburban area, a rural area such as South Norfolk or a market town. So I have not tried to define exactly what it would mean. Instead, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State could issue guidance and make regulations about what it means.

Just yesterday, the Government published their “Right to Build: supporting custom and self build” consultation document. It is a thorough document and I commend it to hon. Members. It is an index of how serious they are about talking to local authorities about what will work locally and how to make this the new normal without its becoming a bureaucratic and burdensome exercise.

I do not pretend that the Bill will change everything overnight. We have a serious issue with our housing need that has not been solved for a generation, and we are not going to solve it overnight. However, I contend that if we open up choice and empower the customer—I mean “customer” in the broadest sense, including those in the market for affordable rental properties—we will start to make a significant difference. We need every available arrow in our quiver if we are to start to solve this problem, which has been going on for far too long. If we can unleash the energy of our own people, we can make a tremendous difference. As Rod Hackney, the architect who used to advise the Prince of Wales, said, it is a dangerous thing to underestimate human potential and the energy that can be generated when people are given the opportunity to help themselves. I believe that my Bill would contribute towards helping people to help themselves, and I commend it to the House.

Private Finance Initiative

Debate between Richard Bacon and Mark Spencer

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on his tremendous campaign. It has been a marvellous example of leadership, which is built on his expertise, and we are all in his debt.

I have been watching the private finance initiative from my position on the Public Accounts Committee for many years. I always had a sneaky suspicion about it, without being able to put my finger on what that was, until I met an investment banker at a private event in 2003. He was a securitisation expert and had been involved in many PFI projects. He said: “I like the PFI. It’s a good source of income and is good for the business, but as a taxpayer it really pisses me off.” That rather woke me up. This was not a trade unionist complaining about costs being cut by worsening the terms and conditions of his members; it was a City fat cat getting fatter on the proceeds.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I used to get invited to conferences on the PFI, when it was in its earlier heyday under new Labour. At those events, I met a group of people whom one can only really describe as theologians for the PFI. Rather like some Marxists, or even some Roman Catholics, there was no question to which they would not have an answer. It was a sort of self-containing system, at the root of which was the idea that the PFI was a competitive bidding process and that there was no possibility of its not being all sorted out and being in the best possible interests of clients—the public authorities involved. After all, it was a competitive, open-market process in which anyone could bid, and certain things would already be in the price. It was almost as if they were talking about the market for foreign exchange, or another perfect market. We know, of course, that because of the huge costs involved in bidding for a large project, the PFI has far more of the characteristics of an oligopoly. The Royal Institute of British Architects estimated, many years ago, that the cost of bidding for a PFI hospital was more than £11 million—probably significantly higher now. All those costs end up getting passed on to the client.

The other thing that these theologians would suggest was that it would not be possible for anything to go wrong, because it would not be possible to have an ill-informed or inexperienced client. There would be no question of there not being the right experience on the client side, or the right capacity or resources to manage a project after a contract had been signed. It was as if all must be for the best in the best of all possible worlds, because it could not be any other way. I continued, however, to be suspicious, and I continued to go to the conferences, becoming ruder and ruder until, I am pleased to say, they stopped inviting me. Customers paid £1,000 to attend and all I got out of it was a slap in the face with a wet haddock and a one-way ticket to Great Yarmouth, so I am glad that I am no longer invited.

I must congratulate the National Audit Office on something that recently opened my eyes. The NAO has produced more than 60 reports on the PFI in the past decade, and I have been pleading with it for years to do more synthesis. We have had analysis after analysis after analysis, and project after project, and in the office’s recent report, published in late April, there is more synthesis of some PFI issues. I had a light-bulb moment when I read on page 7 of the report, in a section about the skills, capacity and experience used in negotiating

“high margins on the changes in asset usage which are likely to occur over a long contract.”

I realised that the providers know full well that it is not possible to write a contract that is flexible enough to last for 25 to 30 years, and so they do two things. One is that they insure themselves by tying down every conceivable cost that might arise—every conceivable risk with its attached price. That process is enormously expensive, and it is reflected in the figure of £11 million that the Royal Institute of British Architects came up with. Although it is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire has said, that in rare instances people have lost a packet on projects, such as Jarvis, the National Physical Laboratory and the Joint Services Command and Staff College in Shrivenham—Laing had to sell its construction business after that—the contractors have a lot of people involved, and they do it well, insuring themselves on the downside pretty effectively, to ensure that they make money whatever happens.

The other light-bulb moment in my reading of the NAO report was when I came to:

“as major contractors seek to develop their income from the project”.

I thought to myself, “Hang on a minute. How do you develop your income from the contract? Okay, you might index the contract to protect yourself from inflation, but basically you have a contract and you provide services. It is predictable, and that is why you know what you’ll get going forward.” No. They know full well when they sign up that it is not possible for the public authority, particularly those in education and health, to write a contract that is flexible enough to last for 25 to 35 years. They ensure that all their risks are covered and then develop their income from the contract over time, as changes occur. One can also see a sudden shift. Just as the flagship Norfolk and Norwich hospital in my constituency was finished, the mood music suddenly changed towards much more primary, locally based care.

The contractors also do fancy financial engineering. The Norfolk and Norwich hospital was perhaps the locus classicus of that. The contractors added about £100 million in extra debt to the contract at the time of refinancing, thus accelerating their return from the project. The NAO produced a report specifically on that hospital, which stated that not only was the repayment period for the hospital extended from 34 years to 39 years—it is hard to see how that was in the interests of taxpayers—but the rate of return for the investors was accelerated from 18.9% to more than 60%, more than tripling it. If they can get all their money out that quickly, it means that it is not nearly as important, and there is not nearly the same incentive, to carry on managing the contract in the same way as before.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire made another important point when he said that we should not kid ourselves that it has all been plain sailing in the conventional procurement world. He has mentioned the British Library. One might also mention the Scottish Parliament and the Jubilee line extension. I was told that the cost overrun for the windows of Portcullis House—which, again, was a conventional procurement that the Public Accounts Committee looked at when it first opened years ago—was so huge that it would have been cheaper to have clad the exterior of Portcullis House with BMW 7 series cars. We should not be under any illusion that the conventional method has worked as well as it should.

The attempt to find a way to get projects delivered on budget, on time had a certain merit. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to point out that the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) took this and ran with it. I talked to Lord Lamont, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a dinner a couple of years ago. He said that he had asked the hon. Member for Coventry North West before the 1997 election, “How on earth are you going to finance all these grand promises in your manifesto?” He replied, “Oh, it’s simple—we’ll take your idea of the PFI and run with it.” Lord Lamont said, “But the rules won’t let you,” to which the hon. Member for Coventry North West replied, “Oh, we’ll ignore your stupid rules.” He was very candid about it, in fairness to him.

One of the things that I have regretted about the past few years of the PFI is that, in areas such as health and education, where it would have been fairly easy to do this, the Government did not insist on developing, at the same time, identical or nearly identical clusters and baskets of projects, so that we would then have had a proper way of comparing, over a period of years—three, five, seven and 12 years out—what had actually proved to be greater value for money.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend also aware that the issue extends to the emergency services? Nottinghamshire police find themselves in a situation whereby their vehicle fleet is PFI-ed, and it costs hundreds of pounds just to repair a puncture.

[Mr Bacon]

Yes, and of course, we cannot blame the private sector for protecting its downside and ensuring that it makes money rather than loses it. One of the most extraordinary things about all this is the naivety of many of the people in the civil service who have negotiated these projects over the years. They do not seem to understand that the private sector players are profit maximisers. If they have a chance to make money, they will, and if they have a chance to make more money, they will. A certain lack of commercial nous and capacity on the part of the public sector has coloured all this.

Turning to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire on steps to improve data, one of the things that have shocked me throughout is the difficulty in getting a view from 100,000 feet of what is going on. I have spent years on the PAC trying to get answers out of the Treasury and other authorities about what is going on, and only very recently has anything started to emerge that looks like a coherent picture. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to think about a variety of different approaches to financing infrastructure. We need to make the PFI compete for business, if we are to use it at all in the future.

There is a paradox in relation to future proposals. The NAO report refers to the fact that there is a pipeline of £200 billion-worth of transport and energy infrastructure projects, and it is precisely for those sorts of enormous, long-term projects that a PFI-type structure might have more attractions to it. However, we have to be able to break down the different components. There is often absolutely no need to ascribe to the entire 35-year period of a project the risks that, in truth, only apply for the first few years, yet that is what many PFI lawyers have been able to get away with in many cases.

My hon. Friend’s campaign for a rebate is fascinating and has certainly caught the attention of the PFI industry. He has led the way on this. It is a remarkable testament to the fact that people in the industry know that things have been going wrong that so many of them have been prepared to co-operate. Interestingly, at the PAC hearing on the NAO report the other day, one of the witnesses, Graham Beazley-Long, from Innisfree, was asked whether it would be reasonable for equity gains to be shared with the taxpayer. He was perfectly prepared to discuss the matter. He said that the Treasury and Infrastructure UK

“would have a view on whether that pushed up the costs of capital”.

In other words, it was all just a negotiation and a certain return would be demanded by investors, and if the taxpayer wanted to pay that up in advance, they could get it back again. There is probably an element of truth in that, but my sense over the years is that the PFI industry, out of which a large number of people have made a great deal of money, has not been made to compete hard enough. There are a number of ways in which they could do that. We should have some conventional clusters that give us, as taxpayers, the ability to compare over the long term, and we should be much more innovative, as my hon. Friend has suggested—I hope that we hear more about his proposal for a national asset trust fund—in securing alternative methods for infrastructure finance, so that the PFI industry knows that it is not the only game in town.