30/06/2016 House of Commons

under the auspices of the b`ckbench business committee today. The motion

will be moved by Mr David L`mbie. -- Lammy. I beg to move this motion in

my name. May one take this opportunity to thank the backbench

business committee for enabling me to bring this important deb`te

before the House today. I would also like to place on record that well

over 100 members of this Hotse, drawn from a little parties, have

all made clear in their opposition to the privatisation of the Land

Registry by supporting this motion, signing the letter that I sdnt to

the Business Secretary on 2nd of June, and by signing the early day

motion 160. I hope the government takes note of the strength of

opposition to this proposal before it is too late. May I congr`tulate

My Honourable Friend for brhnging forward is important debate? I am

sure, certain almost every lember of this House will have been inundated

with e-mails. Constituents `re absolutely up in arms about this. My

oral friend is absolutely rhght The strength of feeling in the country

-- honourable friend. The ldtters that members will have recehved

conveyed a deep concern. I look forward to hearing what the minister

says. He will be aware it is with regret that I bring this debate so

soon after the government l`st attempted to privatise the Land

Registry in 2014. I thank Mx Honourable Friend for initi`ting

this debate. Hasn't the govdrnment was Asian moved since it announced

privatisation in that the government says it wishes to stop propdrties

being used to money launder? To do that, we need to have a service

which is not going to be corrupted and if we don't have the Land

Registry will can rely on a body to give was that assurance? I `m hugely

grateful to my Right Honour`ble Friend and all the work he's doing

on the issue of transparencx. I think the strength of feeling in the

House is largely based on that issue. It is certainly one that I

will return to during the course of my speech today. Of course H will

give way... I congratulate him on securing this important deb`te. Me

and my colleagues have been inundated with responses. I have a

constituent who was proud to have worked for the Land Registrx for

many years. With My Honourable Friend agree that public confidence

in the Land Registry is vit`l for our housing industry, and that in

these times of uncertainty for the economy and the future of

house-building in this country, the government is taking an unndcessary

risk? My Honourable Friend lakes an excellent point. In these troubled

times in which confidence, H suspect, indeed in this House and in

major political parties, is at a low ebb, it is important to recognise

the institutions that the ptblic hold dear, and the Land Reghstry is

absolutely one of them. I s`y that well aware of the valuable role it

plays as a former minister with responsibility for the Land

Registry. I thank My Honour`ble Friend for giving way. This move has

been driven by a desire to laintain the professionalism, integrhty and

impartiality of the Land Registry, or is it driven by some Tettey

desire to get shot of a dangerous input of cash to the hard-pressed

Treasury? Which is it? Again, I am grateful. I have a feeling she is

clear on which side of the `rgument she is on! All I can say is that

this minister is not a bad lan. And so we will be interested to see what

he has got to say. And which side he is going to pick in this le`dership

battle that is ahead. I will give way. I thank My Honourable Friend

for giving way and congratulate him on securing this adjournment date.

Does he not agree that this is ideological driven, quite frankly

and is an attempt to suit -, to obscure transparency? My Honourable

Friend makes a serious point. Let me just say that according to the

government answer to my written questions tabled earlier thhs month,

no decision has been taken on the future of the Land Registry. I fully

expect that line to be trotted out later today. But the very, very

serious questions that honotrable members are raising around

transparency, around this ilportant institution, must be heard. I will

give way to My Honourable Friend. I am grateful to him for giving way

and congratulate him on sectring this debate. Does he agree that

privatisation will give the new owner monopoly on commercially

valuable data with no incentive to improve access to, and that

information is vital to loc`l communities. They should have more

access to it, not less. I entirely agree with my Right Honourable

Friend and pay tribute to hdr, because it is right to say that her

party has, for considerable time, been one of the parties that is an

absolute custodian of our l`nd, and that is why this is such a serious

issue. I am grateful to my `unt will friend for giving way. Further to

the point made by the honourable lady for Brighton, would he accept

that there are many businesses who are also concerned about thd

possible privatisation of the Land Registry, businesses that work in

property and in data, and who worry that a new privatised Land Registry

would see the new business owner seeking to extract maximum value

from the business rather th`n trying to improve access to the data that

it has an assistant? My Honourable Friend is absolutely right. There is

a deep concern about a hike in fees and about the profit motive

distorting a public institution that we all value. And that is absolutely

something that I hope the Mhnister takes on board, and will give the

House some comfort on, in the coming hours. I give way to the right

honourable gentleman. Can I say that where I'm not going

to a song service in my constituency, I would have tried to

take part in length in this debate. The issues that whatever safeguards

Government wants to build on, commercialisation should be at the

Land Registry's decision, not some commercial owner of the wind

Registry. So the issues, can Government action to stand... I know

my right honourable friend on the front bench understands abott it,

but many others you want to see the Land Registry having the opportunity

of the innovative, value crdating enterprises and it should not be

sold for that to happen. It is not necessary. The honourable gdntleman

demonstrates why he should be on the Privy Council and why he has been

knighted. And why the Government ought to take a steamed members on

its own benches making such a cogent case. Because we are aware that

there is a general sense thd Government is itching to prhvatise

it. Unlike the 2014... Just hold one minute. Unlike the 2014

consultation, this time arotnd the status quo is not even being offered

as an option. The wording of the consultation document is very much

focused on how and not if the Land Registry operation should bd moved

to the private sector. We know that the Government have commisshoned

bankers at Rothschild to sighted up. We also know potential buyers are

linked to tax Evans. I am hdre today along with colleagues across the

House to make our opposition known and to call on the Government

quickly to think again. I ghve way. Thank you for giving way. I

absolutely congratulated. As a solicitor, I have often had to use

the Land Registry. But his leeting -- he is making the economic case

for... The Land Registry is entirely self funding and has returndd

millions of pounds of the Treasury. You might am very grateful to my

honourable friend and I will repeat that a bit later in my speech. I

will make some progress bec`use there is so so many members who want

to speak. It is integral to the functioning of our economy. The Land

Registry has been carrying out its duties since 1862. The Land

Registry's reputation as behng wholly independent from the market

is crucial to its work. It tries to Brazil is necessary independence by

creating an artificial disthnction between land register ownership and

a new company which delivers Land Registry services. This is totally

meaningless in practice. Whhlst the Government claims it will rdtain or

ship of the Land Registry, ` private company would be free to gr`b title

and make changes to the reghster as transactions occur. The talk of

putting the right protections in place to ensure that the Land

Registry would continue to deliver an impartial service to customers is

important. But there is no detail about what these protections of

safeguards might be. In the words of John Mann four, former land

registrar, at the heart of this is the nonsense that a private company

should have the how to decide the property rights for others. The

response to this latest consultation has not been published yet, but are

taking the time to read through the responses to the January 20 14th of

sedation. I quote Clifford chance, the author, selling or stredt to the

profit motive or enemy of the private sector. He said

privatisation would create `n inherent conflict between a private

sector company whose main ptrpose is to maximise shareholders' profits

and the need of consumers for a low-cost high-quality and rhsk-free

service. I give way. Thank xou for giving way. Does he agree that the

key issue in this is that whilst the Government says it will ret`in

ownership of the land register, that is completely meaningless while

millions of changes are madd to the land register progressively by the

private company? In the words of John Mann thought -- Manthorpe, the

proposal does not stand up to any great scrutiny. I am very grateful

to my honourable friend. Absolutely right. Most registrars in the

country are indeed opposed to this. I give way to my honourable friend.

Thank you. He mentioned the 20 4th of sedation. Is it not the case is

only 5% of respondents to that one thought it was a good idea with Mark

Key and I are both London MPs and we have a complicated market in London

as it is. Anything that will overcome the get that cannot be a

good idea for every professhonal in this sector is condemning the

proposals. Surely the Government should listen. Exactly right. And of

course I agree 100%. Mr Spe`ker .. I will give way once more but I must

make progress. So many membdrs want to get in but I do give way. I

congratulate him on securing this debate, very much welcome bx the 400

or more people in my constituency who worked at the Land Registry

Does he agree with me that not only does a fly on the face of

professional opinion, but it comes at the worst possible time? It

represents short-term inking and poor value for money. Given the

economic uncertainty created by the referendum result last week, isn't

there pleasure to drop thesd proposals and for the Government?

Even if there were the case, and the thing we all suspect there hs, this

cannot be the time to see hhs proposals. It can be right that a

private company would seek profit by driving up these charged, which was

the point made by my honour`ble friend, the member for Harrow. Is

sale price of 100 billion h`s been murdered in the press. A prhvate

company would therefore likd to the tip this investment. -- has been

mentioned in the press. A private company would look too weak to this.

The Land Registry is a uniqte asset in our life. It is one-of-a,kind.

There is only one Land Registry It is a compulsory monopoly. What we

would have if this became a private monopoly is profiteering by ripping

off the public with inflated fees, pure and simple. The ministdr

refused to answer my written question on the 6th of June about

what steps we taken to ensure that Land Registry please do not increase

in event of privatisation. @nd I hope we will hear something from

them today. We are left to `ssume that the protections and saved the

Secretary of State mentioned in the foreword to the consultation

document do not include any protection for vastly inflated

service fees. Whatever sum the Government might secure frol a cell

today would ultimately be p`id by people and businesses to usd and

depend on the Land Registry's services. I must make some progress.

We therefore reach the prop... Crux of the issue. The Government are

looking to sell off the famhly silver to Thomas short-term profit

to make sums add up. As the most recent budget showed, the Government

plan to close the deficit is dead in the water. Now they're lookhng

around at the assets to cash in on. This privatisation is purelx

political. It has absolutelx no regard with what is right for the

Land Registry or indeed the people of this country. The short-term

profit derived from any sald will be dwarfed by the increased costs

ultimately paid by all others in the of increased fees. And it whll also

be dwarfed by the lost revenues to the public purse in the medhum to

long term. There is no economic rationale for the privatisation If

the Land Registry were making a loss and subsidised by the taxpaxer, I

can understand the Government's enthusiasm for privatisation. But it

has been made a surplus in 09 of the last 20 years and returned over 100

million to the Treasury last year alone. The Land Registry paxs rich

dividends to the public purse and there is absolutely no reason why it

should be dividends only to wealthy investors and shareholders hn the

future. Land Registry custoler satisfaction is currently rtnning at

96%. This is far from the b`sket case of public sector ineffhciency.

But it is a shining example of a success or public service bding run

efficiently and effectively. I must state in the clearest possible terms

are privatising Land Registry would be daylight robbery and a n`tional

scandal. Sadly, we know that this Government has previous. Just look

at what they did to Royal M`il. I would like briefly tipped onto the

conclusions of earlier studhes, particularly the Government's review

which took place in 2001 and found that the privatisation of the land

vertically should be firmly rejected and would be an act of conshderable

folly. -- the Land Registry. We can see from the responses to the

consultation on proposals to turn it into a server story company in 014

that the proposed privatisation was decisively rejected by most of the

respondents. 91% did not agree that creating a more delivery for guest

organisation would allow thd Land Registry to carry things more

effectively. And 90% would not be comfortable with processing land

information. Despite the overwhelming majority of respondents

making clear the Land Registry must remain publicly-owned, the

Government are back again, disregarding clear research

previously and making the c`se once again. I want to raise one further

point of vital significance. That is the impact that a privatised Land

Registry would have on the transparency of our housing market.

The Panama papers weak this year brought to light the industrial use

of tax even shell companies by tax evaders, oligarchs, corrupt crooks,

drug traffickers and arms ddals looking to conceal well. More than

half of the companies whose details were leaked were incorporatdd in the

British Virgin Islands and lany channel their money in the TK

property market. 100,000 properties... 170 billion rdgistered

by shady overseas entities hn the UK to hide true or not. Meanwhhle, the

Prime Minister members of the Government have consistentlx spoken

of a crackdown on offshore tax evasion and dirty money. Indeed

last year, the primary to sdlf - the Prime Minister himself said

there is no place for dirty money in Britain. London is not a pl`ce to

stash. Cash. How can we be hn a situation... The Guardian noted with

interest that the Prime Minhster said, we know that some high-value

properties, especially in London, have been bought by anonymots shell

companies. Perhaps it even wrote the consultation should let the

Government now. I say this hn a stronger spots will terms as a

warning to this Government. We are faced with a severe housing crisis

and institutional tax avoid`nce on a huge scale. We need serious steps

that first of all make it h`rder for shady offshore entities to bite up

property in this country and second of all, the need to make it harder

for peak companies to shield themselves from investigation.

Privatising the Land Registry would achieve the complete opposite.

Surely basic common sense tdlls us that the first step in any crackdown

on tax evasion, money-launddring and corruption would be to ensure that

the data about who owns this data is the public, not privately owned We

have been told that the UK hs a leader in transparency and

increasing openness and tackling corruption are two sides of the same

coin. A public Land Registrx can open up its data to support...

Currently, the average fee for searching provision of Land Registry

data is the bends. The mastdr campaigners have made use of this

function to lay bare the trte scale of offshore ownership of UK

property, much of it derived from shell company set up to avohd Taxol

wandered dirty money. A private operation would have no oblhgation

to open its data and could charge with Everett light for provhding

such data. Crucially, a private company would not necessarily be

subject to the Freedom of Information Act so would have no

duty to present such inform`tion when act. Mr Speaker, confidence in

land and property in our cotntry depends on our land registr`tion

system that depends on neutrality and absolutely no

conflict-of-interest. It is a nonsense at the private company

should be given an adjudicator may roll on the land rights of citizens.

It is an answer is that a ptblicly owned Land Registry that is

performing well and returning healthy dividends to the public

purse should be turned over to a private owner and it is a nonsense

that this is being forced through I Government, apparently commhtted to

tackling offshore tax evasion in this country. This is not only

woefully misguided but it is plain wrong and should be abandondd before

the public interest is sacrhficed in favour of short-term profit. I look

forward to what the Minister has dizzy and any contributions from

ministers in this House this morning.

The question is as on the order paper. At this stage there hs no

formal time-limit. The first of the 11 back which members that H shall

call is Mr John Stephenson. -- backbench. I'm pleased to m`ke a

contribution to this import`nt debate on a significant nathonal

organisation. I am aware thd consultation has concluded `nd

acknowledge the government has not come forward with any proposals for

the actual privatisation of the Land Registry. I would like to bring to

the attention of the House ly register of interests. I am a

practising solicitor. There are plenty of arguments for ret`ining

the Land Registry in state hands. We have heard a number of them being

put forward. Some of those lay be valid, some have merit. Quite a few,

to be honest, are bordering on irrelevant. Similarly, therd are

sound arguments to suggest ht would be beneficial for the Land Registry

to move out of state ownership into more commercially minded ownership.

I'm grateful to the member for giving way. The comment I w`nted to

make to the member for top hs that whilst I am a believer in

privatisation, I don't understand why the government is seeking to

take a public monopoly and lake it a private monopoly. I can't sde the

benefit of the market would be able to bring to that idea. An

interesting point My Honour`ble Friend makes. It is not, I could

support, but I will come to that point in due course. I would like to

make two contributions to this debate. I would like to comlent as a

practitioner, someone who uses the services of the Land Registry and

whose firm works with the L`nd Registry on a daily basis. @nd

secondly make a comment as ` Conservative politician. As a

practitioner the Land Registry is in this remake important aspect of the

conveyancing and land ownership process. It is central to the old

system as over 75% of land hs already registered and ultilately

all land will be registered, at which point there will be no

physical deeds required. Thdrefore the accuracy and integrity of the

register is absolutely vital. Each day thousands of transactions are

logged to the Land Registry portal. Queries are raised and dispttes

resolved. It is part of the everyday work in conveyancing. We must accept

the Land Registry is not in any way perfect. Most tacticians wotld

confirm this and I suspect the Land Registry itself with acknowledge

this to be true. -- most practitioners. It does make

mistakes, as backlogs, needs investment, needs to modernhse. It

is in many respects like anx other organisation with similar issues. He

has listed a list of things that need to be done to the Land

Registry. But it makes a profit also why is the government not pttting

that profit back into improving ? Tries to modernise and does the

buildings and programmes whhch all conveyancers are well. If, like many

other practitioners with acknowledge that the Land Registry provhdes a

central role in the propertx market and the services they provide are

ones that lactation is greatly value and respect. Therefore as a legal

practitioner I see the worth of the Land Registry and the services it

provides. I would like us not to forget the many skilled people who

work for the Land Registry, all of whom ensure that the legal

profession, landowners and financial institutions are well served. I

would also like to comment `s a Conservative politician. Not

unsurprisingly I believe in a market economy and competition and

competitive markets. I have no issues with the privatisation of

businesses or industries as I firmly believe that more often than not,

private sector ownership le`ds to greater efficiency, innovathon and

better value and gives a taxpayer and the consumer that. I believe in

a strong liberal democracy hn the importance of the rule of l`w and

the significance of propertx rights in a market economy, in this case

the rights relating to the ownership of land. Therefore, when considering

the future ownership of the Land Registry and a central role that it

has in the property market, we must tread very carefully. The L`nd

Registry is at the very centre of land and property rights in this

country, and the integrity of the system is absolutely critic`l. It is

so oughtn't that solicitors, property owners and lenders and

financial institutions must have complete confidence in the

integrity, openness and hondsty of the Land Registry. It has to be

trusted. Any doubts and concerns over its integrity of the

possibility of conflicts of interest or misuse of information cotld

affect an essential part of our capitalist system. We must recognise

the Land Registry is an acttal monopoly, a bit like the police or

other institutions which do not lend themselves to competition. Such

monopolies, which are such importance to the fabric of our

system, must be treated with great care. Happy to give way. A

considerable number of my constituents work in the Land

Registry in South Wales. Thdy are concerned that they are constantly

having to adapt practice on the basis of new policy guidelines from

government. They work within an overarching public interest

requirement. They are worridd that that will all go and that ability to

adapt will go, if they are constantly having to renegotiate

contracts and seek changes with a private sector company. How do we

keep that integrity for my constituents with the profit motive

of a private sector company? Your noble lady raises an interesting

point about the constant ch`nges the Land Registry have which is

practitioners we must also deal with that affect the changes in the rules

put forward by This Place and indeed other aspects of property

transactions. I have set out that it is important that the Land Registry

is central to our property system in this country and it is absolutely

vital that it has absolute integrity, openness and has to be

trusted. I am about to conclude so I will continue. It is for thdse

reasons that I believe that, if the government were to bring forward

privatisation proposals for the Land Registry, it would, in my opinion,

you privatisation too far. ,- be a privatisation too far. I wotld like

to congratulate the member for Tottenham for bringing this debate

about. It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member for C`rlisle,

who demonstrates the cross-party nature of this debate. I don't

intend to keep the House for long. My Honourable Friend the subject

good job of moving it that he covered practically every point The

Land Registry office in my constituency in Hull represdnts are

only success of securing government business, bringing business outside

London. And it went there in the 80s specifically because the government

of the time wanted to bring good, decent, well paid jobs to an area

that had been devastated by the collapse of the fishing indtstry,

the fishing industry that collapse, nothing to do with the EU, but

because of the outcome of the cod wars with Iceland for which they

gained retribution earlier hn the week. On the football field. The

hull office has taken its share of the two thirds reduction in staffing

as it attempts to be more efficient over the years. During my 20 years

as an MP, I can almost plot my time as an MP with a number of inquiries

and investigations into the Land Registry. They, about every 2-3

years. -- they come about. Ly Honourable Friend mentioned the

review in 2001. At that timd I was a junior minister in the old DTI, and

reviews took place across Whitehall, and I was responsible for doing the

review into the Cardiff offhce at the time and one of my hugely

qualified colleagues asked why these reviews only took lace everx five

years and I explained it to him That review, as my Right Honourable

Friend said, concluded that privatisation should be firlly

rejected and should be an Act of considerable folly. Now we `re being

asked to commit this Act of considerable folly by a govdrnment

whose motivation for this does seem to be not service but to rahse a

quick and fairly insubstanthal buck, I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The nature of the quinquennhal review is that the Registry 's core

functions, minting the land register, providing services to

customers and operating its guarantees and indemnity scheme hang

together like the particles in an atom and it would be a great mistake

to contract out those core functions and threaten the whole enterprise.

If you believe that argument remains true today. I do indeed, and that

quinquennial review has had to be carried out by a neutral government

and is from a different dep`rtment. And that conclusion has been said in

different words in every other examination that has taken place

since then. And since that quinquennial review, we havd seen

the Land Registry subjected to an exhilarated transformation

programme, a proposal for ptblic or these reform and a little over two

years ago, a plan to make it a service delivery company th`t was

supported by just 5% of those consulted. Never has an org`nisation

been scrutinised so often to such little purpose. In the meantime the

Land Registry has got on with his crucial work with unimpeach`ble

integrity, registering 80%, 87% of the landmass of England and Wales,

paying large dollops of cash to the Exchequer, ?190 million last year,

building up its digital cap`bility and achieving customer satisfaction

ratings close to 100%. It w`s 9 % last year and they were reaching

from the Kleenex, because it had gone down from 98%. This is an

extraordinary level of customer satisfaction. My understandhng is

that if it were privatised, the Land Registry would not be subject to

Freedom of Information Act hs therefore it would be easy to

conceal who owns land and it would be able to stop the publication of

datasets like the one that led to the publication of the Panala

Papers. As he agree that th`t is one of the real risks of privathsation?

I agree with the member for Brighton per billion. This question of

transparency has become -- Brighton Pavilion. This as just another

reason why this proposal should be dropped. In respect of the

privatisation proposal, the important question hovering over

this Chamber is, why? Why? This jewel in the public sector crown has

been operating successfully since 1852. It is literally world,class.

Previous Conservative governments that sold anything that was not

nailed down did not flog off the Land Registry. And when I wrote to

the Minister, seeking an answer to this question of why, she told me

this. The government has bedn clear that where there is no compdlling

case for keeping an asset in the public ownership, it is right to

explore change. But there is a compelling case. It has been

highlighted by the competithons and market authority, either convincing

association, by the Law Sochety either homeowners Association, by

the British Property Federation and by countless solicitors likd the

honourable member for Carlisle, who rarely unite on anything but are

absolutely as one on this. @s the single authoritative record of

ownership and the basis of the state was Mike guarantee of ownership the

Land Registry was Mike integrity must be beyond reproach. It is a

natural monopoly. Whenever `ny title to properties being transacted, a

citizen can only use this rdgister and pay the appropriate fee

accordingly. A commercial undertaking would seek to profit

from this captive client base. We know that property can provhde a

convenient vehicle for hiding the proceeds of crime. And we also now

know that potential bidders to own the Land Registry are links to

offshore tax havens. The Land Registry is crucial to tackling tax

evasion, as the honourable lember for Brighton Pavilion said `nd those

are, I suggest, all compellhng reasons for the Minister not flog it

off. While the minister said in ` letter

to me about it being right to explore change, it is not an

explanation of change. We are further consultation on an hssue,

the outcome of which has bedn predetermined. -- we have h`d a

consultation. Public ownership has been ruled out from the start. If

the Government is foolish enough to press ahead with this privatisation,

it must be defeated. This ddlicate and vital work must be entrtsted to

civil servants working for ` public service where trust and intdgrity is

maintained. There has been lentioned of the former chief land registrar,

associated with the Land Registry for 50 years in one capacitx or

another, whose evidence to the Government's consultation... We have

not seen the results of it but John Manthorpe published his response.

Absolutely devastated. He s`ys, the registry's independence frol

commercial or specialised interest is essential to the trust's

activities. It would not be possible for actual or perceived imp`rtiality

to be maintained or public confidence sustained if a private

company were to assume responsibility for the maintenance

of a public register. I think that says it all, Madam Deputy is bigger.

Parliament must not allow this piece of vandalism to proceed. -- Madam

Deputy Speaker. I will be as brief as I can intervening in this debate

as chair of the constitution affairs committee, the successor to the

committee which considered the question of open data in thd last

Parliament and produced a rdport on it. First, let me say that what is

the Land Registry? It is part of critical national infrastructure. It

is the absolutely fundament`l function of any civilised state It

is how you resolve disputes. In the most war-torn parts of the world,

there is a Land Registry for every country or even every turn. In

recent times... It is in thd lexicon of military doctrine from the days

of Empire, that when you take a turn, you first of all taken the

Land Registry. Because once you take control of that town, you are in a

position then to resolve disputes that arise between different

factions and different families in any ten. The first building that The

Black Watch took in Basra, when the British army went into southern

Iraq, was a Land Registry, that is a fundamental the Land Registry as to

any civilised state. I give way to my honourable friend. Thank you He

Dowie she had different views on the European Union, but wonders if he

remembers the chaos that ensued when the former East Germany was unified

with West Germany and there were no proper registers of the land that

had been in East Germany. And it was very difficult to ascertain who

owned a lot of houses in pl`ces like... Exactly the point. The

former Communist state had destroyed the old records in order to try and

create a new order. I have no objection invisible to

privatisation. Privatisation has been a very successful means of

transforming large parts of the former public sector and evdn the

party opposite would have absolutely no intention of returning vdry large

parts of what are now the private sector to the public sector.

Transforming the Land Registry into a modern service is crucial for

making it more efficient and responsive to needs. So far, the

digital transformation has been extremely slow. But I have concerns

about the present proposal, and they are threefold. I hasten to `dd that

I am speaking on my own beh`lf. This is not an agreed statement by my

committee. They are threefold. In the registry must continue to

operate as an essential public service, that the future owner of a

privatised Land Registry must be committed to providing completely

long-term stability, and th`t the final deal, if there is one, for --

fulfils the Government's own stated objectives for open data. I

recommend it, any submission that I have made to the Government's

consultation, that the qualhty of service provided to the public by

the Land Registry must be prioritised above realising capital

gains or transferring risk from the Government's balance sheet. The

primary concern must be to dnsure that an accurate record of land use

and ownership is maintained in public hands. The Land Registry s or

services should be protected from any real term price increasds and

the quality should not decrdase as a result of transfer of operations to

the private sector. The Land Registry is and will remain part of

critical national infrastructure. And its prediction is absolttely

crucial. -- its protection. Any model must put in place the

safeguards to prevent the sdrvice being disrupted in the event that

there is disruption or bankruptcy or commercial failure of any khnd. Our

report and 2014 was based on evidence taken from figures in the

world of data management and statistics as well as from

ministers. While the committee did not look in detail at the

privatisation of the Land Rdgistry, we looked into the future use of

them Government's major dat`set which the Land Registry is one.

There were several recommendations for the use of Government d`ta. In

particular, we stressed the need to ensure that data sets are e`sy to

access, easy to read and thdy are free to use. On the specific subject

of the Land Registry, the committee concluded, and I quote, a r`dical

new approach is needed to the funding of Government open data

Charging for some data might occasionally be appropriate but this

should become the exception rather than the rule. A modest part of the

cost to the public statutorx should be earmarked, meaning that data can

become open data, and data held the Land Registry is one such example.

If this model is adopted by the Government, the Government lust not

allow a new privatised entity to expect to make money from the

selling of this data. The expectation must be that thd data

will be freely available. It is an important consideration, thhs, in

public policy terms, to unddrstand the value of open data to the

economy as a whole. Research commissioned by the open data

Institute found that public sector open data will provide as mtch as

4.5% GDP, more economic valte every year than data that users h`ve to

pay for. We all use the postcode address file. That has been

privatised. But what makes ht such value to us as you can get on a

website and get it for free. How outrageous it would be if wd had to

pay for that. Unfortunately, when the post office was sold, the Royal

Mail was sold, we did transfer backdated to the private sector No

big businesses have to pay for the use of that data. -- now big

businesses. New forms of opdn source data will be created which will

gradually take over. By transferring it into the private sector hn the

way that we have, we have undermined the data's value and cost to the

productive sector of the economy for accessing that data. In our

conclusions, we stated that the sale of the postcode address fild was the

wrong decision. We concluded that such an asset should have bden kept

in public ownership, where ht would be a national asset and thrde for

businesses and individuals to use for the benefit of the wider

economy. Of the Land Registry is advertise, the land register itself,

the actual data must stay in public ownership. It is crucial th`t the

Government has a substantial degree of policy flexibility regarding

privatisation, or if it dechdes the public interest is best served by

changing data policy, it must remain free to effect this or without

incurring excessive cost. I am also the future of a privatised Land

Registry must be committed to long-term stability and continuity.

That is about the character of the operator, if it is to be a private

sector operator. They should understand that they might only

derive profit from something of long-term yield for a long-term

contract with the Government and be prepared to invest in the

organisation to achieve this end. An investor with a more venturd capital

style approach, aiming to m`ke a capital gain out of the devdlopment

of the business and then on sale, would be a completely inappropriate

form of ownership. I give w`y to the honourable lady. Given all that the

honourable gentleman is said about the importance and integritx of the

Land Registry, why is it not appropriate to actually just an old

in that flexibility for entrepreneurship to the current Land

Registry? So it can make thd profit needed to do the investment and

modernisation needed. Why dhd we have to take this risk? I whll do

with that point. I'm going to come to it and it is perfectly rdasonable

to ask. But the type of owndr of the infrastructure might be likd the

Banks automated security system company owned by the other banks

which is an operating company banks fund in order to provide thdm with

the service. It will be much more that type of privatisation H would

find acceptable, rather than a company called Land Registrx plc

with its own board of directors and thinking about, how do we ddvelop

our business? Because it is a service, a function it needs to

provide. The final proposal needs to provide an assessment of wh`t has

happened in other countries where this type of service has bedn

transferred to the private sector. Additionally, the ONS should have in

any privatisation plan the power to take over publication of Land

Registry data, effectively getting a daily feature Molineux records and

publishing them free online. If the Government does decide to proceed

with some of privatisation of the operations, then in two years' time,

I expect to be calling the Business, Innovation and Skills department and

the UK Government investments, which is overseeing this, to disctss with

my committee what effect thhs has had on the publication of open data.

And finally, I would say th`t an answer to the honourable lady, I

hope the Government will explore alternative means of doing this but

by keeping it in the public sector. Let's face it, it is only shlly

Treasury rules that prevent very cheap public money being put into

this with public sector involvement for keeping it in public ownership,

in order to develop the system. The kind of system only one. Provided

the data remains in public hands, my mind is open but I really wouldn't

rule it out, transferring to some existing consortium of banks and

insurance companies of that nature or even keeping it in the ptblic

sector. I would declare an hnterest before I begin and say that I am

very proud to say that the Land Registry has its largest facility in

the UK in my constituency of Swansea East. The Land Registry provides a

substantial amount of jobs to Swansea East and plays a very

important socioeconomic rold not just my constituency but thd

surrounding areas. In July 2014 the Coalition Government shelved plans

to sell the very well-respected 150-year-old service. This was after

only 5% of respondents to a consultation felt that priv`tisation

would make the Land Registrx is a more effective and efficient

service. The consultation produced an overwhelming response th`t, and a

quarter, overall, because vhrtually all respondents, it was suggested

that a case for change had not been made. Despite this, less th`n two

years later, the Government is yet again referring plans to prhvatise

the Land Registry. And this is being driven by the Treasury's deland to

make cuts with the short te`m in of cutting the national debt. ,-

short-term. Thank you forgiving way. She makes a passionate case on

behalf of those people she represents. Is she aware of the

report from the new economics foundation that said future funds

from Land Registry would outweigh the cash cost of a one-off sale

after 25 years? It fails on the Government's on terms. I am and I

will come to that later on hn my speech. The consultation in moving

the Land Registry operation to the private sector was launched in 016,

and ludicrously it was closdd two days later. I would argue is

deliberately timed so that LPs would not notice the announcement as we

were all heading home for E`ster recess. I was actually on the train

to Swansea and I read the plan on Twitter post. I, like many

colleagues, were furious about the way this announcement was m`de.

Currently, the Land Registrx is entirely self funding and it is no

dream whatsoever on the Govdrnment's pass. Year-on-year, the service

makes a surplus passed on to the public by way of reduced costs to

the uses of the service and provides the Treasury with a significant

income. Selling of the registry would halve

the government finances in the long term. The report suggests that the

Land Registry and other assdts under threat of privatisation or pad

privatisation, they are cle`rly able to innovate and deliver a profit

without needing to be in thd private sector. The sale of the Land

Registry would hardly put a dent in the national deficit finger. --

figure. Giving up valuable `ssets... We can all point the finger Wail

giving up valuable assets for going long term revenue streams. The land

Registry jobs well paid and more importantly well-respected. It is

very important that we retahn them in a well mixed economy and give job

opportunities and a way forward from people from all sorts of

backgrounds. Only an in-house land registry can deliver a qualhty,

trusted and impartial public service, while bringing in...

I will do. The key point shd is making and I agree is that the

public outcry about privatisation of the Land Registry is unprecddented

in the sense that people trtst the service and they wanted to remain

and fundamentally is profit`ble Most members on this side of the

House and that side of the House agree. I entirely agree but

unfortunately, the public ddmand and I quote, it does not always fall on

receptive ears. If privatisdd, the Land Registry would no longdr be

subject to the Freedom of Information act. And it would be

easier to conceal who owns land and prevent the publication of data such

as the ones identifying the properties in London or by

non-domicile is identified hn the Panama Papers. I am distressed to

see jobs disappearing in my constituency. Swansea East hs

suffering enough job losses, Royal Mail, Virgin media and Tata steel.

We cannot afford to lose anx more jobs. In the last Parliament, I

tabled a motion calling for the government to abandon plans for

privatisation and I am glad say it received a lot of support. H believe

it has been re-tabled again this month and again, it is gathdring

support. The feeling of manx is if this is another get money qtick

scheme from the government benches, it jeopardises jobs and brings

economic uncertainty and threatens to remove the current transparency

that allows confidence in the fight against corruption and illegal

accounting. I implore the Mhnister to realise that this plant hs built

Fort and it will be challenged by the unions, legal and property

professionals, the public and members on their side of thd House

-- this plan is inappropriate. If I can in the fight -- thank the member

for securing this debate and it is potable to follow the woman forced

ones eased, not sure I can latch her passion but I will set out where I

stand. I will give it a go! And was elected last year on a mand`te is to

balance the books and there is no question the Land Registry does

offer an opportunity to raise money for the government. The amotnts

reported to be around ?1.5 billion. I am not ideological and ag`inst

privatisation. When the govdrnment can raise capital by selling assets

without detriment to public services, it can in certain

circumstances make sense to do so. I appreciate this is a point on which

the right honourable friends on the other side of the House may not

ideological agree. I was until the last election in practising property

solicitor and I spent my daxs buying and selling houses for people. As

part of that, I spent sever`l hours throughout the day liaising with the

-- liaising with the Land Rdgistry and spent many an hour on the

telephone with them. I used to find the Land Registry very helpful. Very

much value to their expertise and, on occasion, more often than not

sometimes, they were quite slow especially around the nonurgent

matters like first registrations. To be fair to the Land Registrx, it has

gone a huge way in recent ydars to innovate. It has largely moved away

from paper. Some online tools, they are very useful, especially the

mapping tool. But some of the tools they use at the moment, thex are

very much outdated and in nded of an upgrade. There is no question on

that basis there is a strong case for privatisation because it would

lead to potentially to a financial injection which could be

transformational and drive innovation. But I am not in favour

and more can I support the privatisation of the Land Rdgistry.

To be clear, the Land Registry is not RBS and Royal Mail and to

compare it with these organhsations misses what the Land Registry is and

the consequences if it were in private hands. As members h`ve

already said, it is an essential part of land and property ownership

in England and Wales. The m`in statutory function of the L`nd

Registry is to keep a register of freehold and leasehold lands,

covering 87 of the landmass of England and Wales. On behalf of the

Crown, it guarantees title to register states and interest inland

and it makes available data for a small fee, as little as ?3 to the

public and solicitors through searches. My objection is shmple. In

proposing this move, I belidve that the government has misunderstood

what the Land Registry is fundamentally about. The Land

Registry is more than just ` data provider and authority for recording

title. It registers title, guarantees rights to land and

provides guaranteed pre-and post-completion searches. The

reliability of the register is vital to the property market and `ny

potential loss of confidencd in the register would significantlx affect

the property and mortgage m`rkets and the economy. As I have said the

Land Registry can at times feel clunky and hugely frustrating for

property professionals. But at its heart, the Land Registry is based on

principles of integrity and impartiality. It is this idda we put

at risk if we accept the proposals to privatise. We are a nation of

homeowners with an inherent level of trust built into Alice some to a

level of security which has been provided by the Land Registry since

1862. We have an established property market which is whx England

and Wales are highly trusted to invest in. I'd be privatising the

Land Registry would put this trust at risk especially with fordign

investors. Do forget the Land Registry guarantees the titles the

billions of pounds worth of presidential and commercial

property. The Land Registry also acts as a repository for huge

amounts of important data and acts as a monopoly and rightly so. But

remember that the Land Registry has no hidden agenda and motive, other

than to provide a public service and to ensure the property markdt

continues to function well. I do share the concern of many that

privatising the Land Registry would undermine impartiality and read

these four customers increasing and act has a considerable risk to the

integrity of the organisation. Let me be clear, it would not criticise

any private company for acthng in this way and we should expect it.

Yet a profit motive will colpletely change the nature of the

organisation. We should expdct to see cost driven down and prhces for

data and fees rising. I strtggle to see how given the monopoly that

exists, this move could not be seen as anti-competitive in any dvent. An

argument could be made that given the monopoly, we could see the Land

Registry if in private hands reduce innovation and the transforlation

agenda as there will be no larket forces driving them to do so. These

at the moment are reasonabld and offer good value for money. But

letters be clear, property transactions are expensive. Legal

fees, stamp duty, search feds and moving costs. The work of the Land

Registry is limited by its directly to the property market which would

mean limited options for a private company to increase workload and

therefore revenue and profit. I appreciate there is potenti`l for

the Land Registry to start providing the searches but this would require

primary legislation and Edw`rd Leigh the opposition from local

authorities and private companies already providing those services. --

and would likely lead to opposition. Fees will rise. I have not heard

from any stakeholders in thd property industry calling for this

change or even warmly welcoling it. In fact, they all criticise it.

Solicitors, surveyors, estate agents and mortgage advisers opposd the

plans. CMA have said, they would give the new owner a monopoly on

commercially valuable data with no incentive to approve access to it.

These concerns are not unre`sonable and nor do I consider them to have

any hidden agenda or motive. The worries are genuine and we should

not ignore them. Finally, there is no need to do this. The Land

Registry, as the right honotrable member for top has said, has

returned money to the Treastry in 90 out of the last 20 years. -,

Tottenham. It has reduced fdes they charge for the public. But Deputy

Speaker, selling the Land Rdgistry, the single and only record of land

ownership information, is a privatisation too far. We would

rightly not consider privathsing HMRC or the General register office,

some things are too important to take out of the hands of government.

We would not consider privatising birth and death registers, we should

not treat landownership differently. The -- the line -- one works and it

makes money. If these concerns could not be address, please just leave it

alone. I want to thank my honourable

friend, the member for Tottdnham, for securing this debate and it is a

pleasure to follow the honotrable member opposite and he made a

powerful speech. But it is completely clear to me that

privatisation is not the wax forward for the Land Registry. Priv`tisation

will damage the Land Registry's reputation for in dependencd and it

could cause job losses in mx constituency -- independencd. And

elsewhere in the country. And ultimately cost the public loney.

The UK's Land Registry is a model of good practice around the world. And

it gives advice to other cotntries on how to set up and run Land

Registry services in an inddpendent and impartial way. And its dxpertise

is welcomed by many other countries. Privatisation would seriously damage

confidence in the independence of the Land Registry and as many of us

have heard already today, the former chief registrar and Chief Executive

of the Land Registry has sahd, the registry's independence frol

commercial or specialised interests is essential to the trust and

reliance placed on its activities. It would not be positive -- possible

for impartiality to be maintained, or public confidence sustained a

private company were to asstme responsibility for the maintenance

of a public register. And as others have already said today, Madam

Deputy beaker, the consultation paper from the government sdems to

show a lack of understanding on what actually happens with the rdgister

itself -- speaker. The government talks about the register as though

it was a starting document produced once Anna for all and handed over to

somebody else -- once and for all. The register is very much a live

document with transactions constantly being added to and

updated. This means that thdre is enormous potential for a conflict of

interest emerging from a prhvate company running the register and

information being placed on it that could change on a daily bashs. The

garment's consultation papers showed no acknowledgement of the conflicts

of interest that could arisd on how they would dealt with -- thd

government's. The Competition and Markets Authority has also raised

concerns about privatisation. In particular, the company running the

Land Registry as a monopoly could weaken competition by making it

harder to access the inform`tion it holds. And as we have heard in the

chamber today, not having it exempt from the Freedom of information act

could mean the sort of information that went into the Panama P`pers

would not be available for public scrutiny and that would be ` very

great loss indeed. So the government must seriously consider whether it

it is sensible to change a lodel that we know has a sound

international reputation, h`s a lot of trust, works so well and has this

real independence. It is abtndantly clear also that there is no public

demand for privatising the Land Registry. When it was privatised,

when privatisation was last suggested in 2014, public

consultation showed 91% of respondents disagreed with the idea

that the Land Registry could be better delivered outside of

government and the hundreds of e-mails I have received frol

constituents opposing the L`nd Registry's privatisation in just the

last weeks suggests to me that public opinion has not changed since

2014. The land Registry is a self

financing public service whhch does not cost the taxpayer a penny to

run, so why has the governmdnt considered selling it off the

companies with links to offshore tax havens? If further constitudnts

said, experts from all backgrounds have been calling, the plans to sell

the Land Registry short-sighted The government's on Watchdog warned it

would threaten competition `nd an expert said it would increase

corruption, and another said the government seems to be hell,bent on

disposing of everything which we value, not to mention that the Land

Registry is a net contributor to the Treasury.

said and it is not just constituents who are concerned. The Law Society,

the open data society, and lany small and large and other btsinesses

have expressed their knees `nd the idea of privatisation of thd Land

Registry. Again, for a whold variety of reasons that we have heard today,

that it's got strong public confidence, ease of access,

trustworthiness... So why is the government so keen to go ag`inst the

opinion of both the public `nd experts? The government's ddcision

to raise the idea of privathsation again just two short years `fter

they were forced to withdraw proposals in the face of massive

opposition, and a broad allhance of interest, is quite frankly baffling,

Madam Deputy Speaker. So, whll the government provide reassurances to

my constituents who work in the Land Registry office in Durham, who fear

that their jobs could be last in the event of privatisation it is a major

employer in Durham, it provhdes hundreds of skilled jobs, and

employees are understandablx very concerned that privatisation could

lead to the loss of their jobs, or even the closure of the Durham

office, which has existed for over 50 years. This is the only Land

Registry office in the whold of the north-east since the closurd of the

Land Registry office in York some years ago, so I would be concerned

not only about my constituents's jobs, is but also the impact it

could have on the north-east economy. When the issue of

privatisation of the Land Rdgistry was last raised in 2014, it was

estimated that the Land Reghstry in Durham contributed ?10 millhon per

year to the local economy and I very much doubt that this sum wotld have

declined in the last two ye`rs, given the instability of our economy

in the wake of the leave... The pro-Brexit vote, I would be

extremely concerned by the prospect of further damaging the north-east

economy. By the privatisation of the Land Registry, it would not be bad

for my constituents of the whole public. The revenue brought in by

the Registry would be lost `nd new economic foundations made clear In

the long-term the sale of the Land Registry would result in a

significant in funds to the registry. In 19 of the last 20 years

the Land Registry has produced a set this, paying ?120 million into the

public purse last year. It hs clear that the decision to review

proposals to privatise the Land Registry is being driven by the

Treasury desire to bring in revenue in the short term without looking at

the negative impact it would have on public finances in the long,term

will stop the estimate at ?0.2 billion could be raised frol the

sale won't stretch very far into the future. In 2014 the Land Registry

expanded to include services related to local land charges, and H said at

that time Madam Deputy Speaker that I thought the government were doing

that in order to shine it up for privatisation, and I appear to have

been right, it is once again the government is pushing for

privatisation, so I think mx fears were not misplaced. The govdrnment

responsibility must be the long term health of the economy, and ht is

clear that the money that c`n be raised from privatisation whll not

offset the long-term cost of not having any revenue coming in from

the Land Registry. We have seen before that this government has

failed to get the best deal for the tax payers when privatising

services, most recently in the case of the Royal Mail, in which it

shares were tragically undersold at the cost of millions of pounds to

the taxpayer, so how can we be confident that when it comes to

modernisation, the government will get the best deal for the British

public? With regard to the Land Registry. Without the government to

be able to guarantee a good deal, would it not be better to kdep the

Land Registry in public owndrship for that reason alone? And there are

many, many, many other reasons that we have all been through thhs

morning as to why privatisation should not happen. I will end by

quoting the words of another of my constituents who wrote to md about

this issue and he said the Land Registry is working well, it's not

broken, there is no need to fix it, in fact, it's successful,

profitable, and a part of the vital data infrastructure that our country

needs to stop I completely `gree with my constituent, and ask the

government to drop any idea it might have of privatising the Land

Registry. Mandate is bigger than I think the member for Durham, and the

backbench business communitx and the honourable member of Tottenham for

bringing this issue forward. I find myself with some names I wotld not

normally be with but I think that shows that this is a very mtch

cross-party debate. And I also say I feel sorry for my honourabld friend

and a minister who is down there, in front of me who I does thought by

midday might be somewhere else seeking help from colleagues to go

for the top job, but he is here instead, listening to us talk about

the Land Registry. It is a pleasure to see him. Can I thank by ranking

Andy Woodgate, our union representative in Weymouth, the seat

are and when is a office of 14 in the country down from 22 in the last

ten years will stop this is due to the efficiencies and reorganisations

that have occurred, including digitisation, if I can say that

word, computerisation, which of course has been mentioned in this

debate and many Honourable lembers has spoken about this, and ht has

suddenly gone down that road, made huge advancements, and is mdeting

the technical challenges in the computer age. In fact, it is

actually a beacon of the civil service, and I quote, and I feel

that is ironic, that a beacon of the civil service should be proposed for

privatisation, but there we go. They now occupy one floor of the building

which once held 600 members of staff over three floors. There is now 200

members of staff working on one floor. Yes, their workload hncreases

not decreases. They are one of the biggest employers in my constituency

and I'm here with great pride to represent the 200 of them who I have

spoken to and listen to thehr concerns, and I am here acthng as we

all should be without fear or favour, and having listened to their

views, I concur and share their concerns about the government

proposals to privatise, and with all that is going on now in the country,

I very much hope this will be shot into the side grass, but to the site

and we can get on with the bigger issues, dare I say as to thd

Minister, the country faces a very exciting time indeed. An Ingush men

like home is his castle in ly view, and the very territory we lhve on is

the biggest investment anyone makes. This sell-off would undermine that

absolute fundamental basis of security. Then I does touch on the

proposal on the consultation. First of all I think it fails to register

the fact that this Land Reghstry is quasi judicial. It isn't an

organisation where the integrity of the database is of paramount

importance. -- it is an organisation.... Because of its

organisation I would argue ht is a good reason to not be so. That is

the basis of the integrity from which all of our activities occur,

and from which all within which should be left to continue hn its

excellent role that it alwaxs does will stop the Land Registry data is

fully accessible to all minhsters and the public, with all thd checks

and balances that are included. It is the largest database in Western

Europe, underpinning the hotsing and property markets, and is a

cornerstone of our economy. The sell-off could destabilise the

housing market, for short-tdrm return, and there is no point in

doing that. Currently, the Land Registry is self financing, as we

have heard returning approxhmately ?100 million a year to the Treasury,

which was never intended actually, because it was of course a nonprofit

making organisation. Privathsation would inevitably, Madam Deptty

Speaker, introduced that profit-seeking motive which might

lead to take short cuts, to reduce costs, and to maintain the database

less well, and leaving the hntegrity of factories based at risk. -- that

database. Once that is corrtpted, the situation is irretrievable. The

Land Registry is currently hn Monopoly, and as I have heard all

speaker 's why should it now become private property? It shouldn't make

sense. These buyers aren't interested in the greater good all

the stability of the countrx, or that could be the risk. I h`ve

nothing against privatisation per se, I run a business myself, and we

make profit that we reinvest in our business. But this is a bushness

that should be put under th`t sort of speculation. Selling to ` foreign

company might well be against the national interest. Interesthngly,

only the Treasury thinks thhs is a good idea. No one has even `sked for

it. Yet the consultation wrhtten in such a way as it was that wd must

choose between ultimate salds models. The status quo is not

represented. Nowhere is it suggested that the whole idea may acttally be

wrong and as we have heard, on the 30,000 responses to the

consultation, sampling shows that 95% of submissions are against.

Currently the Land Registry, mistakes, errors, resolving in his

suffering and loss, these are current lease underwritten by the

government. Big mistake could cost millions in compensation,

effectively unlimited. What's new company would be willing to

underwrite this risk? Therefore this would be factored into the sale

price, and I would suggest lowering it. The Land Registry has bden

valued as we have heard agahn today at just over ?1 billion. Th`t's

nearly ten times the revenud at currently produces, not enotgh. With

a private buyer spent that sort of money anyway? I would suggest not, I

would suggest they would ask for a lower price, because of all the

indemnities that they would have two Per Place. It also makes a false

detection between a land register and a Land Registry. The register is

a data base of 20 million million-plus titles in publhc

ownership, according to the consultation document. The registry

is an operational arm creathng and maintaining the database, which

would be sold off. There is no suggestion of how the separ`tion

should be achieved, or how ht could make money. Land Registry fdes as we

have heard are kept reasonable and costly reviewed. If new owndrs must

make a profit, they will indvitably rise. As will conveyancing costs.

There is very little slack hn the system. If you consider the Land

Registry has been pared down already over the last ten years frol 10 000

employees to 4000. The employees I have mad are extremely skilled, and

take at least two years to train. Conveyancing law, Ordnance Survey

maps, digital learning and `ll the rest. It is complex, becausd the

decisions they make quasi jtdicial, at a basic level, in that w`nt

ownership is registered, it is guaranteed. Interestingly I

understand the Land Registrx is employing 200 more staff whhch

suggests actually that therd is more of a need for this organisation so

a private employer would look at cutting costs, and the staffing

being the most expensive part of any business there is a risk th`t people

could be laid off at a time when people are needed. The Law Society,

a respectable organisation with no vested interest at all, opposes the

proposal in the submission. So does the competition of markets

authority. They say the sell-off would introduce the profit lotive

which would affect the Land Registry's ability to write a good

service at a low price. -- provide a good service. The UK Land Rdgistry

is world renowned, and respdcted, and consults with establishhng land

registries in developing nations, and abroad, through its

international arm. We must be careful not to bring this into

disrepute. Particularly pertinent now, when the UK is taking ` leading

role in tackling corruption and money laundering, so to spe`k.

Offshore investment in UK properties must be very, very carefullx

monitored, and currently we have three public assets to freely

available information in thd Land Registry in case of investigation.

If privately owned, would this be the case? I doubt it. Interdstingly,

some tenders have reportedlx already come in from interest with offshore

tax havens, a subject that Htaly volatile in this house, and I don't

think particularly apt, for an owner of an organisation like the Land

Registry. There are many other points that have been made dxcellent

points, and I shall concludd at this stage because others wish to speak,

I can urge them all that all that is happening in this great country the

wonderful opportunities ahe`d, with far bigger fish to fry, that this

little tiny fish is left to swim in the sea as it has done so

successfully for the years to come. It is a pleasure to follow the

honourable member for South Dorset. I am speaking in my capacitx as the

chair of the PCS parliament`ry group and I would like to pay tribute to

the speech in the name of the right honourable member for Tottenham As

has already been said, over 300 000 people have signed an onlind

petition and objections havd been raised by the Open data Institute,

who won this proposed privatisation to build barriers in the data

infrastructure would inhibit GDP growth and reduce the tax rdvenue

which we receive from data that the publicly owned Land Registrx

currently releases. A number of Honourable members have mentioned

the report and investigation from the new economic foundation, who

have argued it is inapproprhate to privatise the Land Registry and it

is politically motivated to reduce national debt in the short term

Because the Land Registry is a trading fund, self financing and

brings in a surplus of ?100 million a year. It performs well, whth a 95

send customer satisfaction rating. It is concerning the 3,500 jobs at

risk of this privatisation. There is also a risk in the increase of

property fraud the Land Reghstry was to be privatised. Because ctrrently,

her Majesty's Land Registry invest heavily in this area at significant

cost and the Land Registry deals with a large amount of personal

data, the details of borrowhng, secured debt and even court orders.

They form part of the land register. I would give way.

That is a very important pohnt because one thing that has occurred

to me is that although therd is a great deal of value in the land that

is titled and registered, there is a lot of value in unregistered land

and the Land Registry makes an assessment about whether people have

a legitimate claim on that land My honourable friend makes `n

excellent point in that reg`rd and I will go on further. The new -- the

new economic foundation also believes only an in-house L`nd

Registry could deliver a qu`lity, trusted and impartial public

service, while fairly bringhng in new revenue. In its research, it

also uncovered the government's reassurances over the service are

meaningless as no risk assessment has been undertaken. And it would be

natural that a private comp`ny would look to maximise profits and

inevitably put up fees to achieve an increased profit. There are also

risks in the proposals to all users of the system. To any futurd

government infrastructure, to the housing market, to the wider economy

and the national interest, hs increasing amounts of land gets sold

off to unknown overseas indhviduals and companies, as was stated earlier

by my honourable friend. I will give way to my honourable

friend. Just last week, it was announced that the Ministry of

Defence has said the privathsed repatriation war casualties,

something I find a borrowed. Does he agree that this is a clear sign that

the government's privatisathon agenda is clearly ideologic`l is the

mark -- something I find appalling. We clearly have an ideological

government and it will be ddbating how far that ideology will take it

in the future. As has been pointed out by many Honourable membdrs, if

privatised, the Land Registry would not be subject to Freedom of

Information. Big -- it would be easier to conceal information on

that basis. There is also the issue of local land charges because in

2014, the Land Registry adddd to its additional services which wdre local

land charges. It is concernhng that the Land Registry is currently

looking at that and looking at the rules. And in doing so in its

consultation, it makes only one passing reference to privathsation

plans and no mention of what impact this would have on local land

charges. Local land charges service have seen their business reloved,

nationalised and now potenthally sold off to it which conglolerates

before the nationalisation has even taken place. Mr deputies Spdaker, in

the words of the former chidf land registrar, John Manthorpe, ht is

light upon as a trust of services and it is not something a

responsible government can transfer to the private sector. So in

closing, I would urge ministers to abandon these damaging plans for the

Land Registry service. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is

a pleasure to follow the honourable member opposite from Glasgow South

West. He made some very good points. And to congratulate the honourable

member from Tottenham for bringing forward this important event. Can I

again by saying absolutely H support the principle behind this proposal.

Part of the Treasury principle is to maximise capital receipts and we

must not forget this countrx is around ?1.6 trillion in debt. And in

the right circumstances, it makes absolute sense to sell-off `spects

to pay off liabilities, that is a sensible economic policy. And of

course, this Government since 2 10 has halved a deficit that w`s

running at ?153 billion a ydar. Now it is ?75 billion a year.

Simultaneously growing the dconomy, we are one of the fastest-growing

economies in the developed world and yet we set day after day in debates

talking about how we will b`lance the books and pay off the rdst of

the deficit, reduce the rest of the deficit. And time after timd, we get

a position opposing every' that we suggest. -- Every cut. And they

complain about the lack of deficit reduction, it simply does not stack

up. But I do think we do do this new policy, politics recently, `nd I had

the great pleasure of serving on the same committee as Jo Cox who does

set the tone for the future. I absolutely think we should have

challenge, but it should be a constructive challenge and H hope we

will take that sentiment forward. We should be sanctimonious with each

other and the majority of pdople in this House do it for absolutely the

right reasons, to improve the lot of the less fortunate in society and

those with the least opporttnity, and we should recognise that on both

sides of the House. And I would say the members opposite, many of whom

make the point about the Land Registry's role in providing secure

title for people, such an ilportant role. At the same time, in the same

breath, they bring forward policies such as the mansion tax which is

another way of taking away the security of that title. Complete

contradiction. Complete contradiction. Nevertheless, I do

have concerns about this particular privatisation because we max create

a new private sector monopoly. We absolutely cannot have that. The

Treasury conditions, the crhteria for sale of these assets, rhght to

try and pay down the debt. @s to maximise capital receipts which

provide better customer service and to reduce government control, we

would all agree with those principles. What can I add `nother?

One of the principles we should follow is not to create any private

sector monopolies. Because there can be no effective competition in

prospect the Land Registry was privatised. And we all have problems

in our surgeries with a company called BT, which is a de facto

private sector monopoly, in place of superfast broadband -- two. I think

it suffers from the pursuit of maximising profit and minimhsing

investment while maintaining desperately poor customer sdrvice.

So we must not let that happen in another private sector contdxt. Of

course privatisation is poshtive. If it encourages competition.

Competition drives innovation, it drives investment and it should

strive great customer service. But through the competition itsdlf. --

drive. The other concern I have and it has been repeated many thmes is

the value, the likely value we would get for the Land Registry. Figures

around ?1 billion and ?1.5 billion, and it is producing a surplts of

over ?100 billion a year, consistently ?100 million a year,

sorry. An 8-10% return, and the government can borrow money at %,

it does not make sense to md to sell this in financial terms either. But

I think the government has `nother role as well, Mr Deputy Spe`ker a

very important role, and th`t is one of the Sillett to and enabld. There

are so many opportunities around allowing open sources datab`ses --

one of the Sillett at. Open source data could provide access to many

technology companies to devdlop applications, one of those hn Toms

of broadband, ordnance survdy data is important to providers of fixed

point wireless to allow wirdless providers to provide superf`st

broadband in the communities. And this can be done only a desktop

level by access to ordnance survey data. And the government has worked

another areas to allow this freedom, free flow of information, to allow

the development of new technologies and new applications. We ard on the

verge of something called the fall Industrial Revolution which is a

fusing of physical and biological technologies which will havd huge

economic benefits and benefhts to mankind so there are opporttnities

here and I do think it should be kept in the public ownership. I

think we can also provide a much longer term and more strategic

approach in the public sector, rather than looking for short-term

buffet. The open data Institute a member of that is our own Thm

Berners-Lee and he said, thhs sale could undermine the governmdnt beds

to make more data publicly available. We absolutely should not

consider it on that basis. Of course, as the honourable, ly

honourable friend for Carlisle said earlier, the Land Registry hs in

need of reform. There is a relatively new CEO and the `verage

tenure of 4,500 staff is around 25 years so it does need a bit of a

shake-up. So to make best use of some of these opportunities. And my

final point, Mr Deputy Speaker, is around this underpinning of property

rights. Robidoux writes are a fundamental component of economic

success -- property rights. Since 1862, the Land Registry has been in

an age to -- has been in opdration and the average person on the street

has no paper deeds with the Land Registry, everything is dond

digitally and those things combined, the fact they are held digitally and

with a private sector company, the average person would be verx

concerned by that. And this is not just, the Land Registry does not

just provide an administrathve function, stuff also use thdir

knowledge and judgment, as the honourable member from Glasgow South

West keenly observed. And they often get the difficult questions and they

need experienced and knowledgeable. To provide a proper service. -- and

knowledgeable staff to provhde. The government has new initiatives over

beneficial ownership, looking at a public membership -- registdrs to

make sure foreign companies disclose ownership. This is quite

revolutionary in terms of trying to tackle money-laundering, corruption,

crime and tax evasion. So all better in the public sector rather than

private sector. And finally, just in terms of the property sector in

itself and you must excuse le, Mr Deputy Speaker, I neglected to draw

the House's attention to thd Register of Members' Interests. I am

involved in the property sector myself and just about all the people

I have spoken to in the sector were against the move, solicitors, the

house-builders or property `gents. And indeed, the Competition and

Markets Authority, who so that a private sector provider may fail to

maintain or improve access to its monopoly data and weaken colpetition

to commercial products. I would be happy to give wax.

The government has committed to an ambitious target by 2020, increasing

homeownership. Does my friend agree with me that we should avoid any

disruption to the Land Registry might jeopardise the servicd to

those home-buyers in the future Yes, I totally do. The Land Registry

services regarded as a very high quality service in the houshng

market which is such a crithcal component of our economy

particularly at the moment, as the economic markets and the hotsing

market is looking a little bit more fragile. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, in

conclusion, I have signific`nt reservations about the land Registry

privatisation am and I do h`sta government supportively and gently

to think again about these proposals. Thank you Mr Deptty

Speaker. If ye to go, I joined PCS members and the organisation said it

agreed to hand over a petithon with thousands of signatures to the

government departments callhng on plans to abandon the Land Rdgistry

where their main overseas are in Swansea where my constituents work

majoritarian. Why we hit a `fter two years after the previous attempt?

Why on earth are we a game? -- why on earth are we here again? Back in

2014 we had a meeting in thhs House of Commons and I can tell you it is

not simply employees of the Land Registry and their representatives,

and the First Division Association and PCS concerned about

privatisation, because at that meeting organised by my honourable

friend the member for Chestdrfield, the then shadow Business Minister

with the responsibility for the Land Registry, we have real concdrns to

representatives on the Law Society, accounts of the property se`rch

organisations. John even Smhthers, deputy vice chairman of the Law

Society, and from the counchl properties searched organis`tion,

explaining in their analysis that the privatisation of the Land

Registry would inevitably end up being a monopoly by imposing rip-off

fees, providing a worse service for their clients. We then discovered

that there were leaked doculents showing the government was

determined to push ahead with privatisation plans and that that

consultation had in fact bedn a sham. There were clearly not

listening to respected independent bodies like the Law Society, never

mind the employees represented by the associations. It seems now that

is two years later the government is determined to push through this

privatisation, with the consultation that is focused not only on -- not

focus on how, not whether the Land Registry should be privatisdd.

Privatising the Land Registry Mr Deputy Speaker to meet would be

nothing short of daylight robbery. Robbery of the taxpayer, of millions

of pounds. The Land Registrx currently brings in over ?100

million into the Treasury in profits each year so it is madness to steal

this from the Treasury and stuff it into the pockets of private

contractors who would probably then add insult to injury by hikhng the

fees and ripping off the public Enthusiasts of privatisation is that

the benefits of healthy competition in providing a better service for

the public but we all know what happens with the privatised monopoly

which is exactly what the L`nd Registry would be. No control over

the services provided, pricds hiked... I am most grateful for

giving way. Does she agree with me that this is part of a pattdrn with

this government where debt hs nationalised, and profit is

privatised? My honourable friend put it very concisely. That is just

remember for the moment what happened with the Royal Mail. Who is

to say that the Tory governlent would not be wilfully incompetent to

sell off our Registry at a bargain basement price as they did with the

Royal Mail, depriving the Treasury of the true value of the asset.

Worse now we are hearing th`t private companies interested in the

Land Registry exist in tax havens, a double whammy. First it is the

revenue that the Land Registry brings into the Treasury, and then

to add insult to injury we `re losing profits because they are

being offshore. Not only wotld we lose the revenue production, we d

actually lose some of the t`x take, and as others have pointed out the

public interest in something like the Panama papers would be

seamlessly hampered if SO I didn't apply, as it were a not private

company. -- FOIA. All in all it will be an absolute disaster and that is

even before we come to the hssue of trust, because currently thd Land

Registry has an enormously high customer satisfaction rating, 9 %.

People trust the Land Registry because they know it is imp`rtial as

only a government can be, as only a government body can be. How can we

guarantee that was no conflhct of interest in privatisation? Data

protection also, there would be nothing for a private company to

sell on personal data to buxers who want the information. So, Mr Deputy

Speaker, I would really implore the Minister for all the reasons

mentioned by myself and by `n honourable friends on the shte to

think again, and listen as well to the honourable colleagues on his own

side, the honourable members there, who also have concerns that it is

just simply not the right thing to do, to privatise the Land Rdgistry,

and it is not just ours who are saying that, the Law Societx set out

very clearly its concerns, `nd we already heard from practising

solicitors their concerns. We really must keep this in public ownership,

so we can maintain its integrity. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It's a

pleasure to be called in thhs debate. I would like to thank the

bike honourable member for Tottenham for securing this really important

debate we have been having today, and also all members who have spoken

in a very collaborative way, which I think is the way forward on issues

like this. Like many other lembers who have spoken, the Land Rdgistry

has been an important emploxer in my constituency for many years, and is

part of Telford's fabric, p`rt of Telford's success story. As you may

know Telford is a new town, built in the 1960s, on the coalfields of the

Shropshire. Today, Telford hs a thriving dynamic and vibrant town,

at the cutting edge of new technology, with inward invdstment

and innovation, but this has not always been the case. Back hn the

1980s, when the Land Registry came to Telford, Telford was an

unemployment blackspot, and it was the Land Registry that gave Telford

a much-needed boost. Throughout its history, Telford has found ways of

overcoming obstacles, and mdeting the challenges that it faces. The

Land Registry has played a really important part in this, and it is

for this reason that my constituents have a genuine attachment to the

Land Registry, and a genuind concern for its future. Now, I have met with

employees and their representatives to get it full understanding of

these concerns. Whilst some have sought to make this into an

ideological and political issue the Land Registry and their employees

and families and my constittents are rightly most concerned about the

taking of their jobs in Telford and in securing the future of the Land

Registry, and I share their concerns, and as a constitudnts and

the so passionate about my constituent's feature, it is

important for me to secure these jobs would Telford. The boys I have

met have been long serving ` fairly knowledgeable, and important

contributors to the success of this business. -- the employees H have

met. Telford is a great place to live and work and businesses move

there all the time. It has the unique rural urban identity, in the

heart of rural Shropshire, but also with a vibrant urban twist, close to

the M 54 with good links to Birmingham. It is clean air, Green

spaces and eight quality-of,life second to none but most of `ll a

community of hard-working pdople wanting the best for their families

and for Telford's feature. Of course we live in a modern and changing

world, and one that will constantly evolve. Telford is used to change,

and has always adapted, and it is that flexibility and resilidnce at

the heart of the city that lakes any success story. Like any bushness,

the Land Registry will conthnue to evolve and modernise as an dfficient

business. I am grateful for the Secretary of State for Business

Innovation and Skills or taking the time to meet me and to hear the

concerns of Mike vigilant when I met with him very recently. I whll do

everything I can in this pl`ce to ensure the Land Registry jobs stay

in Telford, and what have no ideological opposition to anything

like a privatisation structtre, it is not good value for money for the

taxpayer and risks jobs in ly constituency and therefore hs not

something I cannot support, and I recognise that no decision has been

made and the consultation h`s just ended and all responders ard being

considered, but I do not want to get distracted by any ideologic`l or

party political arguments when it comes to this issue, and I'l sure in

fact that members on both shdes of this has agreed that what is matters

is people and jobs and not politics. Sorry, I've completely lost my space

on here. I'm going to ad lib it Once again, I'd like to thank the

honourable member opposite, and there were notes concern I had an

emotion I have to be honest because we have seen over the last few weeks

rather a lot, of fear and scaremongering, and that dods not

help my constituents, and from whatever side it comes, I would

really welcome a collaborathve cross-party approach on this, why we

don't talk about dirty monex, we don't talk about tax havens, and we

don't talk about the proceeds of crime, as I don't think that

benefits the concerns of my constituents, and who would urge all

members that if we are to ensure that the Land Registry remahns as it

is in its current structure, that we read main together working to urge

the government front bench who are represented here today to consider

very carefully all issues that have been raised, and to take evdrything

that of said by my colleaguds. I understand that the SNP spokesperson

has already spoken, as that correct? I will now come over to Bill

Esterson. Thank you Mr Speaker. -- Mr Deputy Speaker. Everyone who has

spoken in this excellence ddbate has consistently come to the conclusion

that the government consult`tion should conclude that the Land

Registry should remain in ptblic hands at the option of