---

Land Maintenance Companies

Coincidentally, I just happen to have Greenbelt’s annual report. On the back are the statistics:"““Currently managing open space on behalf of 20,000 homeowners…A further 30,000 are contracted””." At the school that I went to, 20,000 and 30,000 made 50,000. Greenbelt goes on to say that it is"““responsible for approximately 750 development sites throughout the UK””." What is going on is a bullying strategy, which I will describe if hon. Members let me continue. Alex Middleton made various comments telling me what I could and could not do. That is serious. At a public meeting, he said that the company had had problems with its subcontractors. In fact, this week’s Scotland on Sunday reported that one of the company’s directors said that there had been problems"““on some estates and that some subcontractors hired to carry out work had ‘not been up to scratch’.””" One might think that that is perfectly fair and reasonable—until one looks at the directorships held by Greenbelt directors. Alex Middleton holds 15, in Greenbelt Group Ltd, Greenbelt Energy Ltd and other companies. Greenbelt’s main subcontractor is MG Contracting Ltd. Guess who the director of MG Contracting Ltd is? [Hon. Members: ““Alex Middleton.””] Quite correct. The other director of Greenbelt is Anthony Burton. He holds 21 directorships, including various Greenbelt directorships. What do we find among them? MG Contracting Ltd. He is a director—a Greenbelt company is subcontracting to a company in which its directors hold shares. Mr. Richard Taylor holds 19 directorships—again, Greenbelt this and Greenbelt that. Guess what is among them? MG Contracting. The company clearly is Farepak for homeowners. I should like to address the serious bullying. One of my constituents, Paula Hoogerbrugge, set up a support group to help people affected by Greenbelt. She has now been in touch with more than 30 estates throughout the United Kingdom, from Inverness—the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) wished to be here but, sadly, could not owing to other commitments—right down to Leeds. It is exactly the same story articulated by other hon. Members—money charged and service not given, threatening letters sent and the like. What did Greenbelt do in response? First, it had its solicitors write to me:"““We are writing to you at this stage to draw these matters to your attention. You will no doubt give careful consideration to any comments which are made in relation to our clients and ensure that they are properly founded in fact.””" That was on 11 July. They also wrote to Paula. I emailed them back and told them to withdraw their bullying letter to my constituent or I would raise the matter in the House of Commons. I mentioned the company during business questions on 12 July. Greenbelt then wrote to the Speaker in a clear attempt to silence me. As they say in my part of the country, I am big and ugly enough to take on that sort of threat. [Hon. Members: ““Hear, hear!””] Unanimous applause. But it is totally unacceptable to write a similar letter to my constituent. The letter is addressed to Paula and others—I am clearly one of the others—and complains about her press release. I place on record that not only did I see the press release in advance, but I amended it. I will address each of the allegations that Greenbelt made about Paula. The letter reads:"““We are instructed by Greenbelt Group Ltd. We have been given sight of a press release which bears to be prepared and presented by you entitled ‘West Lothian politicians win praise for ""efforts to tackle land maintenance company’. The press release contains a number of statements and notes for editors. Our clients are concerned by a number of claims... Taken individually or together, they are dearly intended to damage the reputation and goodwill””" of the company."““It is our understanding that you have distributed this press release. The gravity of this matter should not be underestimated. It is also clear that anyone who repeats any information which is not true or defamatory will also repeat the defamation complained of and will also be liable in damages.""The following examples have been extracted from your press release, although they do not represent all of the criticisms or complaints which our clients have in relation to your press release.""You allege that our clients are ‘causing problems for thousands of landowners’.””" We know that there are problems. There are problems in Inverness, Fife and right down to Leeds. The letter continues:"““You are asked to substantiate””" the problems"““and to identify the ‘thousands of home owners’ to whom you make reference.""It is stated in terms that Fergus Ewing””," a Scottish Executive Minister,"““is to investigate the company. That is not correct. Mr. Ewing is not carrying out an investigation into Greenbelt. This statement clearly seeks to imply some form of parliamentary or other investigation, which is not true.””" Well, I have news for them. Here we are in Parliament, and today I wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to say that it should investigate the matter. Greenbelt’s solicitors continue:"““You state that our client takes ownership””" of land. The letter says that that is not correct, but it is absolute nonsense. That is exactly what Greenbelt does."““Your press release makes reference to what you describe as an appalling level of service. This is not correct. Our clients have a significant level of communication””." We just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) that Greenbelt admitted to him that it had only improved it, and Greenbelt’s own director said in this week’s Scotland on Sunday that"““in the past its communications with its customers had not been ‘of the best’””," and that improvements were now being made. The solicitor’s letter continues:"““Your press release states that our clients are responsible for the management of 600 sites, which is factually incorrect. They manage 241 sites.””" If Greenbelt manages 241 sites, why is it economical with the truth in its own report?"““You state that these 600 sites involve 36,000 residents… They involve 20,000 residents. These are wildly misleading statements and either are made without making the most basic checks on the factual situation or are made recklessly in an attempt to support or otherwise sensationalise an ill-founded set of allegations.""The press release further states that our clients ignore the bulk of their contractual obligations.””" We have heard from hon. Members that that is exactly the problem with the company, yet it says that that is not the case. The letter goes on:"““The press release goes on to state that our clients perform the bare minimum””." I have heard constituents say at public meetings that they have been trying to contact the company for six years and have been ignored. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) sent Greenbelt recorded delivery letters and eventually cut a bunch of weeds and went down to the head office. It is unbelievable. The letter continues:"““Furthermore, the press release goes on to state that the practices adopt by our clients are so poor””" that they pose risks to children and fire hazards. I welcomed the intervention of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie), because it showed that that is true. The letter goes on:"““Finally, you make the allegation that our clients routinely send letters to non-paying customers telling them that their name will be added to a credit blacklist.””" I have dozens of those letters here. The lawyers—I am sure that they are very good lawyers—go on to say:"““All of the above, either individually or taken together, constitute a serious and concerted attack on our clients...The gravity of this matter should not be underestimated by you. It is recommended you consult solicitors without further delay, and that you meantime desist from further utterances, whether written or spoken, where the intended effect is to further damage the reputation of those we represent.””" That is outrageous. I was involved in the press release. Let me tell hon. Members where the company crossed the line. Paula is a single mum who works for BT. The company’s representatives contacted her employers behind her back in a clear attempt to have her either silenced or sacked. That is despicable bullying behaviour, which is why I am pleased to be here to condemn that group and its behaviour and to ensure that we consider appropriate legislation to rectify the situation. It is totally unacceptable that a company can have a monopoly. Home owners cannot sack the company. Tomorrow, I shall write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and to its English equivalent. I shall include in my letter the contributions from hon. Members in this debate and the file that we have on the company. I shall ask local authorities whether they really want to deal with a company that behaves in such a despicable manner.