Housebuilders' £100m offer after probe ‘definitely looks dodgy', Parliament told
Critics at Westminster suggested the developers made the offer to halt the investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) 'into potentially illegal collusion … that could have inflated house prices'.
They argued the Government should insist on the watchdog completing its probe.
Assurances were also sought that the housebuilders at the centre of the inquiry would not be involved in building the affordable homes funded by the payout, which would see the firms 'simply get their money back'.
The CMA announced last week that Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry had offered the payment as part of a package of commitments to address concerns following the investigation, which was launched last year.
The settlement, which is set to go into affordable housing programmes across the UK, would be the largest ever secured by the CMA through commitments from firms under investigation.
The CMA will now consult on the commitments until July 24 and, if accepted, it will mean the regulator does not need to rule on whether the companies broke competition law.
As well as the payment, the housebuilders have agreed legally binding commitments not to share commercially sensitive information with rivals, such as the prices that houses were sold for, except in 'limited circumstances', the CMA said.
They also agreed to work with the Home Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to develop industry-wide guidance on information sharing.
The firms have said the offer of voluntary commitments does not mean they admit any wrongdoing.
Speaking in the House of Lords, housing minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said: 'The £100 million additional funding proposed for affordable housing will mean more families can benefit from a safe and secure home.'
But Liberal Democrat Baroness Thornhill, a vice president of the Local Government Association, said: 'There could be an alternative version to this – major housebuilders pay £100 million to halt the CMA's investigation into potential illegal collusion through the sharing of competitively sensitive information that could have inflated house prices.
'While this settlement might appear a pragmatic, cost-effective solution, would it not be more useful to have some evidence-led answers about whether the business models of the major developers are a significant factor in the slow delivery of housing?
'Therefore, should not the Government insist that the CMA actually completes its investigation, rather than allowing a financial settlement that obscures the fact and definitely looks dodgy?'
Responding, Lady Taylor said: 'The CMA is continuing its work on this, and on July 9 it announced that it is consulting on its intention to accept commitments offered by the housebuilders in relation to the investigation.
'That consultation closes on July 25, and I have already set out some of the commitments that the seven companies have made.
'The £100 million payment, the largest secured through commitments from companies under investigation, will be split between affordable housing programmes across all our four nations.
'I hope that will make a significant contribution to delivering the affordable housing we all want to see.'
Tory former housing minister Lord Young of Cookham said: 'If the Competition and Markets Authority confirms this £100 million payment for anti-competitive activity, can the minister give an assurance that none of the affordable homes to be built with that money will be built by the volume housebuilders responsible for this activity? Otherwise, they'll simply get their money back.'
Lady Taylor said: 'I am sure that the Competition and Markets Authority, as part of its consultation, will be looking at the best way of distributing that money, so it is not just recycled to the people who caused the problem in the first place.'
Liberal Democrat Lord Rennard said: 'The one-off payment of £100 million towards affordable housing is only about 3% of the operating profit of the five biggest housebuilders this year. Is this a relatively small penalty for them to pay for anti-competitive practices over many years?'
Lady Taylor said: 'This is the biggest settlement ever achieved by the CMA.'
She added: 'We have to consider what is appropriate in these circumstances. I am sure the CMA has done that.'
A CMA spokesperson said: 'Our year-long study of the housing market found that the complex and unpredictable planning system, together with the limitations of speculative private development, was responsible for the persistent under-delivery of new homes in the UK.
'It was also clear that concerns about sharing of confidential information, while important, were not the main driver of the undersupply of housing.
'The £100 million payment we have secured for affordable housing would provide immediate benefits across the UK, without a lengthy further investigation.
'It is in line with fines levied in similar cases that have taken many years to conclude and comes alongside a set of commitments which fully addresses our competition concerns.'
Bellway, which has agreed to pay £13.5 million, said: 'Bellway's offer of commitments does not constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, and the CMA has made no determination as to the existence of any infringement of competition law.
'Bellway welcomes the CMA's consultation on the voluntary commitments and will continue to work constructively with the CMA throughout the process.'
Berkeley declined to comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump and the Epstein files: How the story has unfolded so far
The Trump administration has been struggling for nearly two weeks to contain the fallout of the Justice Department's announcement that no more Epstein evidence in the government's possession would be released to the public despite promises of transparency from Attorney General Pam Bondi. (Produced by Luke Garratt)
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Japan's 10-Year Yield Peaks: What's Driving the Rise?
Japan's 10-year government bond yield approached 1.60% on Wednesday, July 16, reaching its highest level since late 2008. That marks a rise of over 45% since the start of the year. The upward movement is part of a broader shift across the yield curve, with the 30-year JGB hitting a record 3.21%, and the 20-year yield rising to 2.65%—its highest level since 1999. This sharp repricing comes at a politically sensitive time. Just days before the Upper House election on July 20, markets are digesting a complex mix of fiscal policy speculation, tax reform pledges, and renewed geopolitical trade risks—all of which are converging to alter expectations around Japan's interest rate environment. Rising Yields Reflect Fiscal Policy Anticipation Ahead of the Election A major driver of the recent climb in Japanese government bond yields is market anticipation of looser fiscal policy. As noted by Ken Matsumoto, Japan macro strategist at Crédit Agricole CIB, 'Japan's long yields and super-long yields are currently rising due to expectations of fiscal expansion after the Upper House election.' In the run-up to the vote, multiple political parties have proposed expanded spending and potential tax reductions. The Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDP), the largest opposition party, has made a cut to the consumption tax a central campaign pledge. What sets this election cycle apart is the shifting political landscape. Following the ruling Liberal Democratic Party–Komeito coalition's loss of its Lower House majority in 2024, the outcome of the Upper House vote may determine whether such fiscal measures—once considered politically unrealistic—move closer to implementation. Consumption Tax Debate Highlights Policy Trade-offs Japan's consumption tax rate currently stands at 10%, with a reduced 8% rate applicable to food. The last hike, implemented in 2019, aimed to shore up funding for the nation's social security system amid rising demographic pressures from an aging population. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who leads the LDP, remains opposed to cutting the tax, arguing that it is vital for maintaining Japan's social welfare programs. 'Social welfare costs will continue to rise from now on,' Ishiba warned in a recent televised debate, stressing that repealing or reducing the tax could undermine fiscal stability. Moreover, Ishiba noted that any change to the tax rate would take approximately a year to implement—rendering it ineffective as a near-term measure to counter rising costs. Instead, the LDP-Komeito coalition is proposing direct cash handouts of ¥20,000 ($139) per person, which could be executed more swiftly. Still, bond markets remain focused on the long-term implications for fiscal discipline and debt sustainability. Geopolitical Trade Risks Reinforce Upward Pressure on Yields The domestic fiscal outlook is further clouded by rising external uncertainty. On July 7, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 25% tariff on imports from Japan and South Korea, effective August 1. He also floated even steeper duties—potentially up to 35%—while criticizing Japan for its limited purchases of American goods, particularly in the automotive and agricultural sectors. These trade threats are already reshaping policy discussions within Japan. DPP leader Yuichiro Tamaki has publicly argued that if U.S. tariffs are enacted, a consumption tax cut may become essential to support households and businesses. From a market perspective, heightened trade tensions increase the likelihood of further fiscal support, which in turn implies greater debt issuance—a dynamic already contributing to the rise in long-term yields. Japan's Debt Burden Casts a Long Shadow Beyond near-term political and trade developments, structural fiscal challenges remain a fundamental concern. Japan holds the highest public debt ratio among advanced economies, at approximately 250% of GDP. When private-sector liabilities are included, total debt climbs to over 600% of GDP. Despite recurring calls for fiscal consolidation, current political momentum appears to favor expansionary measures. Fitch Ratings, which assigns Japan an 'A' sovereign rating with a stable outlook, warned this week that fiscal policy poses the greatest risk to Japan's credit profile. 'Calls for aggressive spending and consumption tax cuts ahead of the election could undermine fiscal discipline,' Fitch stated. Unfunded tax cuts or stimulus that fails to deliver substantial economic growth would widen deficits and accelerate Japan's already steep debt trajectory—potentially pressuring its sovereign rating over time. Bottom-Line The surge in Japanese long-term bond yields is not simply a response to technical market factors. It reflects a broader repricing of Japan's fiscal outlook, political uncertainty, and external vulnerabilities. With the Upper House election set for July 20, the results could significantly influence the country's near- and medium-term policy direction. For now, investors appear to be positioning for a potential pivot toward greater fiscal stimulus, a looser budgetary stance, and ongoing trade headwinds—all of which suggest upward pressure on yields may persist. Sources: CNBC, Reuters, The Japan Times, Japanese Ministry of Finance This article was originally posted on FX Empire More From FXEMPIRE: Strength for the Dollar After Higher Inflation Why Nextracker Could Be the Next Big Money Outlier Spot Outliers Like Hyperscaler Microsoft Early Identify Superstar Stocks Like DoorDash Before the Crowd NASDAQ 100 Update: Is a 5% Correction Brewing? Buy Like Big Money: Bentley Systems Lifting Off
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Understanding Canada's moves to block cheap steel imports
Prime Minister Mark Carney announced Wednesday that the government was tightening rules around steel imports. The move is an effort to protect Canada's domestic industry from dumping as the global trade of the metal undergoes major shifts because of government actions out of the United States and China. Here's a look at some of the key questions. What is dumping? Dumping refers to foreign firms selling goods at artificially low prices, or prices that don't accurately reflect their cost of production. It can also mean a company selling goods for less in foreign markets than comparable goods are selling for in their home market. Companies tend to dump goods either by selling below cost to gain market share, or because an excess of production in their home countries has them looking for markets to offload the goods and recover some costs. Government subsidies can be a significant contributor to firms selling at artificial prices because they distort price structures. Subsidies can include simply giving money to companies to help them grow, more indirect aids like preferential access to land, as well as government loans and loan guarantees and tax breaks. The Canadian government uses all of these levers to help grow domestic industries, but governments can only go so far within international trade rules. Subsidies that artificially reduce costs so manufacturers can flood foreign markets at unfairly low prices crosses that line. How big of a problem is steel dumping for Canada? While dumping cases are determined on specific products, the overall scale of steel imports has swelled over the past decade. Offshore imports have climbed from 19 per cent of the Canadian market in 2014 to 39 per cent in 2022, according to the Canadian Steel Producers Association. The steel industry also dominates anti-dumping inquiries at the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the body tasked with determining whether imported goods are being sold at artificially low prices. The Canadian steel industry has challenged dozens of product categories from cold- to hot-rolled steel, various wires, piping and rods, even including stainless steel sinks. The tribunal has largely ruled in favour of applications that dumping has occurred and is harming Canadian industry. And while there are problems now, the bigger concern is how much more product, especially from China, might get diverted to the Canadian market as the U.S. moves to close off imports. It's also expected to be a growing problem in the future as China's domestic demand slows. China already has 50 million tonnes of overcapacity in steel production across its 360 mills, according to Wood Mackenzie, but it said that overcapacity could swell to 250 million tonnes over the next decade. Canada's total production, meanwhile, was 12.1 million tonnes in 2023. How long has it been a problem? A long time. Canada introduced the first anti-dumping provisions in the world in 1904, which singled out a 'special duty on under-valued goods,' according to international trade expert Dan Ciuriak in a report. What was unique about the measure was that it was a flexible tariff, meant to make up the difference between the selling price and the fair market value. The problem has continued and grown as global trade has increased, leading to growing calls to do more about it. For steel, concerns grew as China's exports surged to 110 million tonnes in 2015 before starting to retreat, only for it to surpass that total in 2024 with 115 million tonnes in exports, according to the International Trade Administration. Back in 2020, United Steelworkers union national director for Canada Ken Neumann said the problem of illegal steel dumping needs to stop. 'Our union will continue to aggressively defend the jobs of steelworkers across Canada who for too long have been harmed by steel imports dumped into our country and sold at unprofitable, below-market prices.' What do the latest tariffs aim to achieve? Canada already imposed 25 per cent tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum from China last year, with the move coming into place in October. But the steel industry and others have maintained that other countries are taking steel produced in China, processing it further and then trying to export it as originating from the there. The latest measures are meant to help protect against that work-around. That's why the government imposed the 25 per cent tariff on steel products that were "melted and poured" in China. The move is the culmination of years of efforts to increase transparency in steel imports, including a requirement that went into effect only last November for importers to declare the country the metal is melted and poured. Catherine Cobden, CEO of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, said the measures will go some ways to tackle China's actions as an "egregious" overcapacity practitioner. "Canada is taking direct aim at global steel overcapacities, and frankly, it's a strong position, and I think will be applauded around the world. This is something that even the United States hasn't yet done." This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 18, 2025. Ian Bickis, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
