People 'terrified' by benefit reforms
Alun Davies, Member of the Senedd for Blaenau Gwent, said residents affected by disability and poverty were already struggling "in making ends meet".
In Wednesday's Spring Statement, Rachel Reeves announced a number of benefit changes, including tightening qualification rules for Personal Independence Payments (Pips) - the main disability benefit - claimed by more than 250,000 people in Wales.
"It scares the most vulnerable people in our society, and that's deeply distressing to see," said Davies.
First minister refuses to back welfare cuts
Reeves criticised by Labour MP on benefits cuts
Spring Statement 2025: Key points at a glance
"What we need to do as a Labour Party is to address the fundamentals in the economy," he told BBC Radio Wales' Sunday Supplement.
"We're seeing at the moment taxation increasing because the economy is failing.
"People want to work and people want to live decent lives and it's the role of government, surely, to help people do that," said Davies whose Blaenau Gwent constituency has the joint highest proportion of disabled people in Wales, according to census data.
Labour MP Kanishka Narayan, who represents constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan, told TV programme BBC Politics Wales that "change needs to happen" even though he had received emails from people "feeling uncertainty and anxiety".
He said the welfare system is "not getting enough people the support they need to get into work".
"A quarter of people in Wales are working age, not in work or not looking for work – surely that is not a context that anyone can accept," he said.
Speaking on the same programme, Sam Rowlands, Conservative MS for North Wales, said the Spring Statement had been "rushed through".
"We're going to see those people impacted by it not being treated fairly, and we're not going to see the efficiencies that reform in this area would deliver."
Ben Lake, Plaid Cymru MP for Ceredigion Preseli, said it was alarming that "the most vulnerable in society" were being asked to "shoulder the burden" of economic difficulties.
In her address to MPs on Wednesday, Reeves said "it can't be right" to "write off" an entire generation who are out of work and improperly using Pips.
There are two elements to Pips – a daily living and a mobility component – and under the government's proposals, assessments for the daily living part will be tightened, a move the official forecaster – the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) – says will affect around 800,000 people.
The chancellor also confirmed health-related universal credit for new claimants - which was already due to be halved from April 2026 under a package announced last week - would be frozen at its new lower level of £50 per week until 2030.
A Department for Work and Pensions assessment found 3.2 million families across England and Wales would be worse off as a result of the changes, with 250,000 more people pushed into relative poverty.
The UK government has said the reforms are aimed at modernising the welfare system, and getting many of those reliant on assistance back into work.
On Friday, Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan refused to back the chancellor's welfare cuts, telling the Senedd she wanted to "reserve my position" until she knew what the impact would be on Wales.
Morgan also confirmed she was waiting for a response from Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall to her request for a Wales-specific impact assessment and said she was now seeking a meeting with her.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Millions of drivers denied compensation by Supreme Court car finance ruling
Millions of drivers will miss out on tens of billions in compensation after Britain's highest court rejected claims drivers were mis-sold car loans. The Supreme Court on Friday rejected arguments that customers should have been informed about 'secret' commissions paid to car salesmen when they arranged loans to fund vehicle purchases. Judges overturned earlier rulings that had claimed payments from banks amounted to 'bribes' and salesmen had a 'fiduciary duty' to look out for customers. The Supreme Court decision is a major boost for Rachel Reeves, who had feared that a mass compensation scheme would undermine UK growth. Analysts had estimated the cost of redress schemes for banks could have reached £44bn, putting it on a par with the PPI scandal that cost £50bn. The Chancellor was preparing to push through new laws to protect banks in the event that the Supreme Court ruled against them. A Treasury source said this intervention was now no longer necessary. A Treasury spokesman said: 'We respect this judgment from the Supreme Court and we will now work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers.' The Supreme Court did not hand banks and salesmen a total victory. It upheld one case that argued a car loan had been 'unfair'. However, experts said this judgment was based on the unique circumstances of one particular case. Nicola Pangbourne, a partner at Kennedys law firm, said drivers should be 'very pessimistic' about getting any compensation. 'The court ruled there was an unfair relationship in one case but that was very fact-specific. It's not going to be the same for everybody,' she said. Drivers may still be in line for some compensation from a separate investigation into the car finance market by the City watchdog the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). However, Friday's ruling effectively shields lenders including Lloyds, Barclays and Santander from a wave of claims that they would have struggled to defend. Gary Greenwood, an analyst at Shore Capital, said: 'The worst case scenario is off the table for the banks.' Bank share prices are expected to rise in London when markets open Monday morning. Two million people use car finance loans each year and around eight in ten vehicles sold in Britain are purchased using borrowed money. It is common practice for car salesmen to be paid a commission or a flat fee when arranging a loan for a vehicle purchase. Customers are not always informed how much salesmen are paid under these arrangements. A lower court decision last year ruled that dealers should inform customers about the rate of commissions. This judgment triggered chaos in the car market, amid fears that the way it worked had become illegal overnight. On Friday, Lord Reed, president of the Supreme Court, said that because car dealers were motivated by commercial factors they could not be held liable for failing to disclose commission payments. Reversing the lower court decision, he said the payments could not be classed as 'bribes'. The Finance and Leasing Association, the UK's main trade group which represents dozens of lenders, called it an 'excellent outcome'. Stephen Haddrill, director general, said the decision 'restored certainty and clarity' to the market. 'Cars are an essential part of UK life – and for many people, relying on a car means relying on motor finance,' he said. The FCA, which regulates the sector, is investigating another type of bonus commission, known as a discretionary commission arrangement, which was paid to dealers if they convinced customers to take on more expensive car loans. The regulator said it planned to lay out details of a compensation scheme for drivers who were sold this type of loan on Monday. The Supreme Court disclosed its verdict at 4:35pm on Friday, shortly after the London stock market closed, avoiding significant swings in share prices as investors digested the ruling. 07:18 PM BST Signing off... Thanks for joining us here. That's all for this blog but you can read our article on whether you could you still get compensation here. 07:01 PM BST Motorists warned to 'sit tight' and avoid claims firms Motorists are being urged to 'sit tight' and avoid signing up to potentially costly claims management firms. Paul Barker, editor of Auto Express, said: 'Today's Supreme Court ruling - which found that car finance firms did not unlawfully mis-sell products simply by failing to disclose commissions - narrows the scope for car finance compensation claims, but it doesn't eliminate them entirely. 'Anyone who signed up for a discretionary commission arrangement (DCA) between 2007 and 2021 should still be eligible for compensation; the FCA [Financial Conduct Authority] is expected to set out next steps regarding this ruling in the coming weeks. 'In the meantime, we strongly advise against using claims management firms, which often take a hefty cut of any compensation. 'Instead, there are free tools and official routes available to help you make a claim directly. 'And if the FCA introduces the mooted 'opt-out' scheme, you may not need to do anything at all - your lender will be required to contact you. 'Until then, sit tight, avoid unnecessary fees and keep an eye on updates from the regulator.' 06:34 PM BST Motorist involved in Supreme Court case 'dumbfounded' by ruling One of three drivers involved in a legal row over motor finance compensation has said he is 'dumbfounded' after the Supreme Court ruled that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments. Marcus Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid £1,650.95 in commission as part of a finance agreement. In October last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that the 35-year-old and two other drivers who had also paid commission as part of car finance agreements before 2021 were entitled to compensation. The court ruled that the motorists were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. The Supreme Court overturned the decision on Friday, but said Mr Johnson should retain his compensation and interest as he was in an 'unfair' relationship with the lender. When asked by he felt about the outcome of the case, Mr Johnson, from Cwmbran in Wales, said: 'It was surprise and sadness, because I was quite confident, just based on how I felt about it, the unfairness of what happened to me. 'I thought people looking at all the information would come to the same conclusion, and I'm just dumbfounded. 'I feel terrible that people won't be able to claim anything like I have.' Mr Johnson said he did not 'disagree with commission' as he understood 'that that is how the market works'. But he said that the ruling 'sounds like it's fine to secretly overcharge customers for commission'. 06:11 PM BST FCA to consider redress scheme for some car finance payments Britain's financial watchdog will this weekend reach a decision on whether to offer a redress scheme for some car finance customers. The Financial Conduct Authority said it would decide before financial markets open on Monday whether to provide some form of remedy to people who took out car finance and paid commission they did not know about. A spokesman for the regulator said: 'We welcome that the Supreme Court has clarified the law and are grateful to the Court for delivering the judgment after the market closed. 'We want to bring greater certainty for consumers, firms and investors as quickly as possible. 'We will be working through the weekend to analyse the judgment and determine our next steps. 'We said we would set out within six weeks whether we would consult on a redress scheme. But we want to provide clarity as quickly as possible. 'So, we will confirm whether we will consult on a redress scheme before markets open on Monday 4 August. 'Our aims remain to ensure that consumers are fairly compensated and that the motor finance market works well, given around 2 million people rely on it every year to buy a car. 'If we do decide to propose a redress scheme, we'll consult widely. In designing a redress scheme, as we have previously said, we will balance principles including fairness, timeliness, and certainty.' 06:01 PM BST Lawyers ready fresh claims over motor finance debacle Lawyers are readying themselves to file lawsuits against banks after the Supreme Court left the door open for some compensation claims, Louis Goss reports. Lizzy Comley, from law firm Slater and Gordon, said people who took out car loans could still make claims on the basis their agreements were 'unfair' even after the Supreme Court largely ruled in favour of the banks. Ms Comley said: 'Where it was unfair, you can still seek redress for fixed commission.' 'You're going to have to establish that actually there were a number of different factors that made a particular arrangement unfair, and you'll have to do that on a bespoke basis.'Factors that could demonstrate unfairness include the characteristics of the customer and the size of the commissions paid, Ms Comley said. 05:52 PM BST Car finance industry welcomes ruling The UK's main motor finance body has welcomed the Supreme Court ruling, calling it an 'excellent outcome'. The Finance and Leasing Association represents dozens of lenders. Stephen Haddrill, director general, said: 'This judgment is an excellent outcome. It properly reflects the role and responsibilities of dealers, lenders and customers, and it has restored certainty and clarity to the largest point-of-sale consumer credit market in the UK. 'In addition, it has also restored confidence to the sector, confirming that it remains a solid investable option – which in turn means the supply of affordable motor finance will continue for customers. 'Cars are an essential part of UK life – and for many people, relying on a car means relying on motor finance. It's a product that's trusted and valued by our customers – just over 80pc of new cars are bought on finance, as is a large percentage of used cars. 'The FCA now has the legal clarity to continue its work to establish if a redress scheme is needed, and of course the thousands of unfounded complaints submitted to lenders by claimant law firms and CMCs can now be removed from the system.' 05:38 PM BST Car finance claims will not be 'easy win' Nicola Pangbourne, partner at Kennedys law firm, said drivers should be 'very pessimistic' about getting any compensation if they took out a car loan. She said proving customers had an 'unfair' relationship with a bank would prove challenging, not least because they would have to have all the documentation about the loan. 'The court ruled there was an unfair relationship in one case but that was very fact-specific. It's not going to be the same for everybody,' she said. 'If I was a driver, I would be very pessimistic about getting compensation. There's now quite a few hurdles they've got to get through. It will be difficult to find out the details about what commission rates were paid. 'It will not be an easy win.' She said the Supreme Court's decision was 'very good for the banks'. 'It rightly clarifies that there is no fiduciary duty when you are a car dealership. The banks are going to be breathing a sigh of relief,' she said. 05:26 PM BST Could you still get compensation? The court's decision means lenders including Lloyds, Barclays and Santander are likely to be shielded from the majority of claims that would have cost billions of pounds. As things stand following today's decision, far fewer consumers look poised to be eligible for reimbursement. Telegraph Money explains what you should and shouldn't do next... 05:17 PM BST Motorists could get 'automatic' compensation in some cases, Martin Lewis says Some customers who bought cars on finance could be offered 'automatic' compensation by Britain's financial regulators in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, Martin Lewis has suggested. The personal finance expert said: 'My suspicion is the FCA will within weeks announce consultation on a redress scheme for discretionary commission cases. You may not even have to claim it, could be automatic. 'And with excessive commissions I suspect more guidance will come on that at a similar time. 'If you sign up to a claims firm now, you may have to give it a cut even if it does nothing. So just sit on your hands for now.' The regulator had been looking at bonuses paid to dealerships - known as Discretionary Commission Arrangements (DCA) - which were higher if dealers get customers to take out loans at higher interest rates. DCAs were banned by the FCA several years ago but the watchdog is pursuing an investigation into historical deals dating back to 2007. 05:14 PM BST 'Worst case scenario' averted for banks, analysts say Banks appear to have swerved the worst of the financial impact of the car finance scandal after the Supreme Court rejected the majority of claims in a landmark case today. Gary Greenwood, an analyst at Shore Capital, said: 'The broad read across is that the extreme scenario of fiduciary duty and bribery have been rejected - therefore the worst case scenario is off the table for the banks. 'It allows the FCA to come up a redress plan that only punishes those that need to be punished. It's a positive impact for Close Brothers in particular.' Susannah Marsh, a lawyer at Moore Barlow, said: 'This decision prevents what could have been the biggest consumer compensation crisis in UK history after PPI and the Chancellor can now park any plans for retrospective legislative intervention. 'As the threat of billions in industry-wide payouts has been lifted, the financial services sector may breathe a sigh of relief, however this doesn't put a pin in the issue entirely. 'While the Supreme Court ruling might prevent mass litigation, there may still be litigation to come. Ultimately, we're not out of the woods yet. Each case will turn on its facts and there will still be circumstances where a motor broker could be found to owe fiduciary duties.' 05:08 PM BST 'Excessive' claims could still come to court, says Martin Lewis Customers who were mis-sold car loans and charged 'excessive' commission could still bring claims in the motor finance scandal, Martin Lewis has suggested. The MoneySuperMarket founder said that the fact there was 'no disclosure [of] commission will not make arrangement unfair', but deals with excessive commission could still have a claim. In the case that was upheld, a finance firm charged a car customer 55pc commission as part of their loan. Mr Lewis said: 'The fact it was so high is powerful indication that relationship between the customer and finance company was unfair. 'Other cases can be brought on case by case basis if excessive commission and/or misleading documents.' 05:04 PM BST Chancellor 'respects' Supreme Court judgment The Government has said it will now work with regulators to unpack the Supreme Court's ruling and its impacts on consumers, banks and the car industry. A Treasury spokesman said: 'We respect this judgment from the Supreme Court and we will now work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers. 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' 04:55 PM BST Supreme Court rejects majority of claims in car finance scandal The Supreme Court has rejected two of the claims before it in the car finance scandal. Lord Reed told the court that the commission paid to car dealers was 'not a bribe'. However, he said the court had upheld a claim from a third claimant over an 'unfair' relationship between a customer and a finance company. He said that in this case the 'financial commission was so high' that it was unfair. Lord Reed said: 'The finance company should pay the amount of the commission plus interest.' In a written summary of the judgment rejecting the majority of the claims, the Supreme Court said: 'A finance package on acceptable terms was always going to be an integral part of what had to be negotiated to bring the transaction to fruition. 'No reasonable onlooker would think that, by offering to find a suitable finance package, the dealer was thereby giving up, rather than continuing to pursue, its own commercial objective of securing a profitable sale.' However, in one of the claims, the court decided that the 'fact that the undisclosed commission was so high is a powerful indication that the relationship' was unfair. 04:50 PM BST Court of Appeal decision was a 'shock' to industry The Supreme Court has considered three cases seeking to claw back commissions paid to dealers. Lord Reed says the cases are based on three arguments: the commissions amounted to a 'bribe'; the dealers had a 'fiduciary' duty to look out for the best interests of customers and the commission violated this; and in one case it was argued that the relationship with the finance company was 'unfair' based on the consumer credit act. He adds the decision of the Court of Appeal was a 'shock' to the industry and the FCA. 04:44 PM BST Court lays out how car loan scheme works The case revolves around two relationships, says Lord Reed, the Supreme Court president: the agreement between banks and dealerships and the agreements between the customer and banks. Lord Reed says it considered the two relationships as a whole as both agreements are contingent on each other. He said they feature a 'three-cornered' arrangement between customers, financiers and dealers. He adds: 'The important point to understand is the car dealer has an interest in the negotiation over the customer's finance package.' The customer does not deal with the finance company directly, he says. The dealer acts as an intermediary. 'The dealer does not act as the agent of the customer,' he says. 'It does not give the customer any reassurance that it is setting its commercial interest aside.' 04:39 PM BST Supreme Court delays judgment to avoid financial volatility The court is now in session. The Supreme Court has confirmed it delayed delivering a judgment on the car finance scandal to avoid volatility on the London stock market given the huge implication for Britain's financial services industry. The President of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed of Allermuir, confirmed the FCA and other parties had requested the decision was handed down after markets closed to avoid 'market disorder', and that nobody had objected. 04:20 PM BST Bank shares fall ahead of Supreme Court ruling UK bank shares are trading down this afternoon ahead of the Supreme Court's ruling. Lloyds Bank, which is the most exposed to the motor finance matter, is down 2.7pc and Barclays is 3.65pc lower. They are among the heaviest losers on the FTSE 100, which is down 0.65pc. Close Brothers, a smaller FTSE 250 lender also heavily involved, has fallen 2.6pc. The Supreme Court will issue its judgement starting at 4:35pm - shortly after the London stock market closes. 04:12 PM BST Timeline: How the car finance scandal unfolded 04:05 PM BST Banks set aside billions to pay potential claims Some of Britain's biggest banks have already set aside billions of pounds to cover potential claims if today's Supreme Court verdict does not go their way. Lloyd's, through its Black Horse division, was the UK's top motor finance lender and the bank has already put aside £1.2bn for possible compensation. Santander has earmarked £295m and Barclays has set aside £90m. Close Brothers, a smaller specialist lender deeply embedded in the market, has provisioned £165m and Investec has set aside £30m. The scandal also threatens to blow a hole in the Government's finances. Treasury officials believe that a string of major firms could use compensation payments to people who were mis-sold loans to legally cut their corporate tax bills. This would reduce revenue for the Treasury at a time when the Chancellor is battling to meet her fiscal targets. Analysis suggests the Treasury could lose up to £5.5bn in corporation tax receipts as a result. 03:52 PM BST Car finance ruling risks 'calamity for Reeves' The Supreme Court's decision later today could have major knock-on effects for the Labour Chancellor, the UK economy and the pockets of millions of consumers. As Louis Goss reported this morning, a ruling that upholds the decision by the Court of Appeal in October could hamper growth in the financial services sector and force banks to pay out billions of pounds in compensation. It could also open the door to a flood of other claims: The judgment could not only unleash a PPI-style compensation scheme worth billions, but also create a fresh headache for Reeves, who fears a ruling against the banks would reflect badly on Britain as a place to do business. Read the full story here: The £44bn car finance ruling that threatens calamity for Reeves 03:42 PM BST Supreme Court to deliver £44bn verdict Good afternoon. The Supreme Court is preparing to deliver a critical verdict over the car-finance mis-selling scandal that threatens to spark a wave of compensation claims and shake the City of London. The UK's highest court is set to rule on an earlier decision that said car dealers should have informed customers about the commissions they were paid by banks when they arranged car loans. The decision could have major implications for Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, who is concerned having another major redress scheme for the banking sector will hit UK economic growth. The court is expected to hand down its judgment at 4.35pm today. The Telegraph will be covering events live here. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves making ‘even bigger mistakes' than Liz Truss, says Kemi Badenoch
Kemi Badenoch has said Rachel Reeves is making 'even bigger mistakes' than Liz Truss. The Tory leader hit out at the Chancellor and the Prime Minister for their economic decisions as she drew a critical comparison to her predecessor at the top of the Conservative Party. 'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-budget and are making even bigger mistakes,' Mrs Badenoch wrote in The Telegraph. 'They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.' Short-lived Conservative prime minister Ms Truss's mini-budget spooked the financial markets in 2022 and led to a spike in mortgage rates. 'As we all saw in 2022, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are reliant on the bond markets,' Mrs Badenoch added. 'Yet those bond markets are increasingly jittery about the levels of borrowing today with no balancing spending decreases. 'Rachel Reeves's unfunded series of U-turns have only added to the pressure. She is boxed in by her party on one side, and her fiscal rules on the other.' The Chancellor earlier admitted Labour had 'disappointed' people while in Government, but said that the Government had got the balance right between tax, spending and borrowing. She told an audience at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival that balancing the books meant making tough decisions, even if the are unpopular. Appearing on the Iain Dale All Talk Fringe show, she said: 'The reason people voted Labour at the last election is they want to change and they were unhappy with the way that the country was being governed. 'They know that we inherited a mess. They know it's not easy to put it right, but people are impatient for change. 'I'm impatient for change as well, but I've also got the job of making sure the sums always add up – and it doesn't always make you popular because you can't do anything you might want to do. You certainly can't do everything straight away, all at once.' Ms Reeves pointed to Labour's £200 million investment in carbon capture in the north-east of Scotland, which she said was welcomed by the industry. At the same time, Labour's windfall tax, she said, was not liked by the sector. 'I can understand that that's extra tax that the oil and gas sector are paying, but you can't really have one without the other,' she said. Defending Labour's record, she said her party had the 'balance about right'. 'But of course you're going to disappoint people,' she added. 'No-one wants to pay more taxes. 'Everyone wants more money than public spending – and borrowing is not a free option, because you've got to pay for it. 'I think people know those sort of constraints, but no-one really likes them and I'm the one, I guess, that has to sort the sums up.' Ms Reeves said Labour had to deliver on its general election campaign of change, adding that her party did not 'deserve' to win the next election if it does not deliver the change it promised.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Yvette Cooper's fast-track asylum plan revealed after protests across UK
The Home Secretary plans to introduce a fast-track scheme to tackle the asylum backlog that aims to turn around decisions within weeks. Yvette Cooper said Labour was planning a 'major overhaul' of the appeal process in the hope it would help to make a significant dent in the numbers. 'We need a major overhaul of the appeal [process] and that's what we are going to do in the autumn… If we speed up the decision-making appeal system and also then keep increasing returns, we hope to be able to make quite a big reduction in the overall numbers in the asylum system, because that is the best way to actually restore order and control,' Ms Cooper told The Sunday Times. The aim would be to compress the process so decisions and returns could happen 'within weeks', the newspaper reported, citing a source familiar with the plans. The Government faces pressure to cut how many asylum seekers are housed in hotels while awaiting the outcome of a claim or appeal. The Home Secretary has previously said she was eager to put a fast-track system for decisions and appeals in place so that people from countries considered safe would not sit in the asylum system for a long time. 'We should be able to take those decisions really fast, be able to take those decisions, make sure that they go through the appeals system really fast and then also make sure they are returned really quickly as well,' she told the Home Affairs committee in June. 'That would mean a fast-track system alongside the main asylum system, I think that would be really important in terms of making sure that the system is fair. 'That will require legislation in order to be able to do that, as well as a new system design.' The Government is also seeking to reduce the number of Channel crossings. More than 25,000 migrants have arrived in small boats this year so far. Tensions over asylum hotels have flared up in recent weeks, with a protest and counter-protest taking place on Saturday outside the Thistle City Barbican Hotel in north London, and also in Newcastle. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has pledged to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament. Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. They are housed in hotels if there is not enough space in accommodation provided by local authorities or other organisations.
