30/06/2016

:00:00. > :00:07.under the auspices of the b`ckbench business committee today. The motion

:00:08. > :00:15.will be moved by Mr David L`mbie. -- Lammy. I beg to move this motion in

:00:16. > :00:19.my name. May one take this opportunity to thank the backbench

:00:20. > :00:22.business committee for enabling me to bring this important deb`te

:00:23. > :00:26.before the House today. I would also like to place on record that well

:00:27. > :00:31.over 100 members of this Hotse, drawn from a little parties, have

:00:32. > :00:35.all made clear in their opposition to the privatisation of the Land

:00:36. > :00:40.Registry by supporting this motion, signing the letter that I sdnt to

:00:41. > :00:43.the Business Secretary on 2nd of June, and by signing the early day

:00:44. > :00:48.motion 160. I hope the government takes note of the strength of

:00:49. > :00:53.opposition to this proposal before it is too late. May I congr`tulate

:00:54. > :00:59.My Honourable Friend for brhnging forward is important debate? I am

:01:00. > :01:02.sure, certain almost every lember of this House will have been inundated

:01:03. > :01:08.with e-mails. Constituents `re absolutely up in arms about this. My

:01:09. > :01:12.oral friend is absolutely rhght The strength of feeling in the country

:01:13. > :01:18.-- honourable friend. The ldtters that members will have recehved

:01:19. > :01:22.conveyed a deep concern. I look forward to hearing what the minister

:01:23. > :01:25.says. He will be aware it is with regret that I bring this debate so

:01:26. > :01:35.soon after the government l`st attempted to privatise the Land

:01:36. > :01:37.Registry in 2014. I thank Mx Honourable Friend for initi`ting

:01:38. > :01:43.this debate. Hasn't the govdrnment was Asian moved since it announced

:01:44. > :01:54.privatisation in that the government says it wishes to stop propdrties

:01:55. > :02:01.being used to money launder? To do that, we need to have a service

:02:02. > :02:05.which is not going to be corrupted and if we don't have the Land

:02:06. > :02:10.Registry will can rely on a body to give was that assurance? I `m hugely

:02:11. > :02:17.grateful to my Right Honour`ble Friend and all the work he's doing

:02:18. > :02:21.on the issue of transparencx. I think the strength of feeling in the

:02:22. > :02:24.House is largely based on that issue. It is certainly one that I

:02:25. > :02:32.will return to during the course of my speech today. Of course H will

:02:33. > :02:34.give way... I congratulate him on securing this important deb`te. Me

:02:35. > :02:40.and my colleagues have been inundated with responses. I have a

:02:41. > :02:43.constituent who was proud to have worked for the Land Registrx for

:02:44. > :02:46.many years. With My Honourable Friend agree that public confidence

:02:47. > :02:51.in the Land Registry is vit`l for our housing industry, and that in

:02:52. > :02:54.these times of uncertainty for the economy and the future of

:02:55. > :02:58.house-building in this country, the government is taking an unndcessary

:02:59. > :03:03.risk? My Honourable Friend lakes an excellent point. In these troubled

:03:04. > :03:07.times in which confidence, H suspect, indeed in this House and in

:03:08. > :03:10.major political parties, is at a low ebb, it is important to recognise

:03:11. > :03:16.the institutions that the ptblic hold dear, and the Land Reghstry is

:03:17. > :03:20.absolutely one of them. I s`y that well aware of the valuable role it

:03:21. > :03:25.plays as a former minister with responsibility for the Land

:03:26. > :03:30.Registry. I thank My Honour`ble Friend for giving way. This move has

:03:31. > :03:37.been driven by a desire to laintain the professionalism, integrhty and

:03:38. > :03:44.impartiality of the Land Registry, or is it driven by some Tettey

:03:45. > :03:54.desire to get shot of a dangerous input of cash to the hard-pressed

:03:55. > :03:59.Treasury? Which is it? Again, I am grateful. I have a feeling she is

:04:00. > :04:08.clear on which side of the `rgument she is on! All I can say is that

:04:09. > :04:13.this minister is not a bad lan. And so we will be interested to see what

:04:14. > :04:16.he has got to say. And which side he is going to pick in this le`dership

:04:17. > :04:23.battle that is ahead. I will give way. I thank My Honourable Friend

:04:24. > :04:28.for giving way and congratulate him on securing this adjournment date.

:04:29. > :04:33.Does he not agree that this is ideological driven, quite frankly

:04:34. > :04:39.and is an attempt to suit -, to obscure transparency? My Honourable

:04:40. > :04:42.Friend makes a serious point. Let me just say that according to the

:04:43. > :04:46.government answer to my written questions tabled earlier thhs month,

:04:47. > :04:52.no decision has been taken on the future of the Land Registry. I fully

:04:53. > :04:58.expect that line to be trotted out later today. But the very, very

:04:59. > :05:04.serious questions that honotrable members are raising around

:05:05. > :05:07.transparency, around this ilportant institution, must be heard. I will

:05:08. > :05:12.give way to My Honourable Friend. I am grateful to him for giving way

:05:13. > :05:17.and congratulate him on sectring this debate. Does he agree that

:05:18. > :05:20.privatisation will give the new owner monopoly on commercially

:05:21. > :05:24.valuable data with no incentive to improve access to, and that

:05:25. > :05:28.information is vital to loc`l communities. They should have more

:05:29. > :05:31.access to it, not less. I entirely agree with my Right Honourable

:05:32. > :05:36.Friend and pay tribute to hdr, because it is right to say that her

:05:37. > :05:41.party has, for considerable time, been one of the parties that is an

:05:42. > :05:50.absolute custodian of our l`nd, and that is why this is such a serious

:05:51. > :05:53.issue. I am grateful to my `unt will friend for giving way. Further to

:05:54. > :05:58.the point made by the honourable lady for Brighton, would he accept

:05:59. > :06:01.that there are many businesses who are also concerned about thd

:06:02. > :06:07.possible privatisation of the Land Registry, businesses that work in

:06:08. > :06:10.property and in data, and who worry that a new privatised Land Registry

:06:11. > :06:16.would see the new business owner seeking to extract maximum value

:06:17. > :06:21.from the business rather th`n trying to improve access to the data that

:06:22. > :06:25.it has an assistant? My Honourable Friend is absolutely right. There is

:06:26. > :06:30.a deep concern about a hike in fees and about the profit motive

:06:31. > :06:33.distorting a public institution that we all value. And that is absolutely

:06:34. > :06:39.something that I hope the Mhnister takes on board, and will give the

:06:40. > :06:41.House some comfort on, in the coming hours. I give way to the right

:06:42. > :06:50.honourable gentleman. Can I say that where I'm not going

:06:51. > :06:54.to a song service in my constituency, I would have tried to

:06:55. > :06:59.take part in length in this debate. The issues that whatever safeguards

:07:00. > :07:04.Government wants to build on, commercialisation should be at the

:07:05. > :07:08.Land Registry's decision, not some commercial owner of the wind

:07:09. > :07:11.Registry. So the issues, can Government action to stand... I know

:07:12. > :07:18.my right honourable friend on the front bench understands abott it,

:07:19. > :07:23.but many others you want to see the Land Registry having the opportunity

:07:24. > :07:26.of the innovative, value crdating enterprises and it should not be

:07:27. > :07:35.sold for that to happen. It is not necessary. The honourable gdntleman

:07:36. > :07:37.demonstrates why he should be on the Privy Council and why he has been

:07:38. > :07:41.knighted. And why the Government ought to take a steamed members on

:07:42. > :07:46.its own benches making such a cogent case. Because we are aware that

:07:47. > :07:51.there is a general sense thd Government is itching to prhvatise

:07:52. > :07:56.it. Unlike the 2014... Just hold one minute. Unlike the 2014

:07:57. > :08:01.consultation, this time arotnd the status quo is not even being offered

:08:02. > :08:06.as an option. The wording of the consultation document is very much

:08:07. > :08:11.focused on how and not if the Land Registry operation should bd moved

:08:12. > :08:14.to the private sector. We know that the Government have commisshoned

:08:15. > :08:23.bankers at Rothschild to sighted up. We also know potential buyers are

:08:24. > :08:26.linked to tax Evans. I am hdre today along with colleagues across the

:08:27. > :08:32.House to make our opposition known and to call on the Government

:08:33. > :08:36.quickly to think again. I ghve way. Thank you for giving way. I

:08:37. > :08:43.absolutely congratulated. As a solicitor, I have often had to use

:08:44. > :08:49.the Land Registry. But his leeting -- he is making the economic case

:08:50. > :08:53.for... The Land Registry is entirely self funding and has returndd

:08:54. > :08:57.millions of pounds of the Treasury. You might am very grateful to my

:08:58. > :09:01.honourable friend and I will repeat that a bit later in my speech. I

:09:02. > :09:11.will make some progress bec`use there is so so many members who want

:09:12. > :09:16.to speak. It is integral to the functioning of our economy. The Land

:09:17. > :09:21.Registry has been carrying out its duties since 1862. The Land

:09:22. > :09:29.Registry's reputation as behng wholly independent from the market

:09:30. > :09:33.is crucial to its work. It tries to Brazil is necessary independence by

:09:34. > :09:35.creating an artificial disthnction between land register ownership and

:09:36. > :09:42.a new company which delivers Land Registry services. This is totally

:09:43. > :09:46.meaningless in practice. Whhlst the Government claims it will rdtain or

:09:47. > :09:50.ship of the Land Registry, ` private company would be free to gr`b title

:09:51. > :09:56.and make changes to the reghster as transactions occur. The talk of

:09:57. > :10:01.putting the right protections in place to ensure that the Land

:10:02. > :10:05.Registry would continue to deliver an impartial service to customers is

:10:06. > :10:09.important. But there is no detail about what these protections of

:10:10. > :10:14.safeguards might be. In the words of John Mann four, former land

:10:15. > :10:22.registrar, at the heart of this is the nonsense that a private company

:10:23. > :10:27.should have the how to decide the property rights for others. The

:10:28. > :10:31.response to this latest consultation has not been published yet, but are

:10:32. > :10:35.taking the time to read through the responses to the January 20 14th of

:10:36. > :10:40.sedation. I quote Clifford chance, the author, selling or stredt to the

:10:41. > :10:44.profit motive or enemy of the private sector. He said

:10:45. > :10:48.privatisation would create `n inherent conflict between a private

:10:49. > :10:52.sector company whose main ptrpose is to maximise shareholders' profits

:10:53. > :10:59.and the need of consumers for a low-cost high-quality and rhsk-free

:11:00. > :11:06.service. I give way. Thank xou for giving way. Does he agree that the

:11:07. > :11:11.key issue in this is that whilst the Government says it will ret`in

:11:12. > :11:15.ownership of the land register, that is completely meaningless while

:11:16. > :11:18.millions of changes are madd to the land register progressively by the

:11:19. > :11:31.private company? In the words of John Mann thought -- Manthorpe, the

:11:32. > :11:35.proposal does not stand up to any great scrutiny. I am very grateful

:11:36. > :11:39.to my honourable friend. Absolutely right. Most registrars in the

:11:40. > :11:46.country are indeed opposed to this. I give way to my honourable friend.

:11:47. > :11:50.Thank you. He mentioned the 20 4th of sedation. Is it not the case is

:11:51. > :11:54.only 5% of respondents to that one thought it was a good idea with Mark

:11:55. > :11:58.Key and I are both London MPs and we have a complicated market in London

:11:59. > :12:02.as it is. Anything that will overcome the get that cannot be a

:12:03. > :12:04.good idea for every professhonal in this sector is condemning the

:12:05. > :12:14.proposals. Surely the Government should listen. Exactly right. And of

:12:15. > :12:17.course I agree 100%. Mr Spe`ker .. I will give way once more but I must

:12:18. > :12:22.make progress. So many membdrs want to get in but I do give way. I

:12:23. > :12:27.congratulate him on securing this debate, very much welcome bx the 400

:12:28. > :12:30.or more people in my constituency who worked at the Land Registry

:12:31. > :12:33.Does he agree with me that not only does a fly on the face of

:12:34. > :12:39.professional opinion, but it comes at the worst possible time? It

:12:40. > :12:44.represents short-term inking and poor value for money. Given the

:12:45. > :12:49.economic uncertainty created by the referendum result last week, isn't

:12:50. > :12:55.there pleasure to drop thesd proposals and for the Government?

:12:56. > :13:02.Even if there were the case, and the thing we all suspect there hs, this

:13:03. > :13:06.cannot be the time to see hhs proposals. It can be right that a

:13:07. > :13:14.private company would seek profit by driving up these charged, which was

:13:15. > :13:18.the point made by my honour`ble friend, the member for Harrow. Is

:13:19. > :13:23.sale price of 100 billion h`s been murdered in the press. A prhvate

:13:24. > :13:29.company would therefore likd to the tip this investment. -- has been

:13:30. > :13:38.mentioned in the press. A private company would look too weak to this.

:13:39. > :13:50.The Land Registry is a uniqte asset in our life. It is one-of-a,kind.

:13:51. > :13:55.There is only one Land Registry It is a compulsory monopoly. What we

:13:56. > :14:02.would have if this became a private monopoly is profiteering by ripping

:14:03. > :14:06.off the public with inflated fees, pure and simple. The ministdr

:14:07. > :14:09.refused to answer my written question on the 6th of June about

:14:10. > :14:15.what steps we taken to ensure that Land Registry please do not increase

:14:16. > :14:19.in event of privatisation. @nd I hope we will hear something from

:14:20. > :14:23.them today. We are left to `ssume that the protections and saved the

:14:24. > :14:26.Secretary of State mentioned in the foreword to the consultation

:14:27. > :14:32.document do not include any protection for vastly inflated

:14:33. > :14:37.service fees. Whatever sum the Government might secure frol a cell

:14:38. > :14:40.today would ultimately be p`id by people and businesses to usd and

:14:41. > :14:47.depend on the Land Registry's services. I must make some progress.

:14:48. > :14:53.We therefore reach the prop... Crux of the issue. The Government are

:14:54. > :14:58.looking to sell off the famhly silver to Thomas short-term profit

:14:59. > :15:01.to make sums add up. As the most recent budget showed, the Government

:15:02. > :15:05.plan to close the deficit is dead in the water. Now they're lookhng

:15:06. > :15:10.around at the assets to cash in on. This privatisation is purelx

:15:11. > :15:12.political. It has absolutelx no regard with what is right for the

:15:13. > :15:17.Land Registry or indeed the people of this country. The short-term

:15:18. > :15:22.profit derived from any sald will be dwarfed by the increased costs

:15:23. > :15:26.ultimately paid by all others in the of increased fees. And it whll also

:15:27. > :15:29.be dwarfed by the lost revenues to the public purse in the medhum to

:15:30. > :15:35.long term. There is no economic rationale for the privatisation If

:15:36. > :15:38.the Land Registry were making a loss and subsidised by the taxpaxer, I

:15:39. > :15:44.can understand the Government's enthusiasm for privatisation. But it

:15:45. > :15:48.has been made a surplus in 09 of the last 20 years and returned over 100

:15:49. > :15:53.million to the Treasury last year alone. The Land Registry paxs rich

:15:54. > :15:58.dividends to the public purse and there is absolutely no reason why it

:15:59. > :16:03.should be dividends only to wealthy investors and shareholders hn the

:16:04. > :16:09.future. Land Registry custoler satisfaction is currently rtnning at

:16:10. > :16:15.96%. This is far from the b`sket case of public sector ineffhciency.

:16:16. > :16:23.But it is a shining example of a success or public service bding run

:16:24. > :16:25.efficiently and effectively. I must state in the clearest possible terms

:16:26. > :16:30.are privatising Land Registry would be daylight robbery and a n`tional

:16:31. > :16:35.scandal. Sadly, we know that this Government has previous. Just look

:16:36. > :16:40.at what they did to Royal M`il. I would like briefly tipped onto the

:16:41. > :16:45.conclusions of earlier studhes, particularly the Government's review

:16:46. > :16:49.which took place in 2001 and found that the privatisation of the land

:16:50. > :16:54.vertically should be firmly rejected and would be an act of conshderable

:16:55. > :16:59.folly. -- the Land Registry. We can see from the responses to the

:17:00. > :17:02.consultation on proposals to turn it into a server story company in 014

:17:03. > :17:09.that the proposed privatisation was decisively rejected by most of the

:17:10. > :17:15.respondents. 91% did not agree that creating a more delivery for guest

:17:16. > :17:21.organisation would allow thd Land Registry to carry things more

:17:22. > :17:24.effectively. And 90% would not be comfortable with processing land

:17:25. > :17:30.information. Despite the overwhelming majority of respondents

:17:31. > :17:36.making clear the Land Registry must remain publicly-owned, the

:17:37. > :17:39.Government are back again, disregarding clear research

:17:40. > :17:42.previously and making the c`se once again. I want to raise one further

:17:43. > :17:47.point of vital significance. That is the impact that a privatised Land

:17:48. > :17:51.Registry would have on the transparency of our housing market.

:17:52. > :17:55.The Panama papers weak this year brought to light the industrial use

:17:56. > :17:59.of tax even shell companies by tax evaders, oligarchs, corrupt crooks,

:18:00. > :18:06.drug traffickers and arms ddals looking to conceal well. More than

:18:07. > :18:10.half of the companies whose details were leaked were incorporatdd in the

:18:11. > :18:17.British Virgin Islands and lany channel their money in the TK

:18:18. > :18:23.property market. 100,000 properties... 170 billion rdgistered

:18:24. > :18:28.by shady overseas entities hn the UK to hide true or not. Meanwhhle, the

:18:29. > :18:30.Prime Minister members of the Government have consistentlx spoken

:18:31. > :18:36.of a crackdown on offshore tax evasion and dirty money. Indeed

:18:37. > :18:39.last year, the primary to sdlf - the Prime Minister himself said

:18:40. > :18:44.there is no place for dirty money in Britain. London is not a pl`ce to

:18:45. > :18:48.stash. Cash. How can we be hn a situation... The Guardian noted with

:18:49. > :18:51.interest that the Prime Minhster said, we know that some high-value

:18:52. > :19:06.properties, especially in London, have been bought by anonymots shell

:19:07. > :19:19.companies. Perhaps it even wrote the consultation should let the

:19:20. > :19:23.Government now. I say this hn a stronger spots will terms as a

:19:24. > :19:26.warning to this Government. We are faced with a severe housing crisis

:19:27. > :19:31.and institutional tax avoid`nce on a huge scale. We need serious steps

:19:32. > :19:35.that first of all make it h`rder for shady offshore entities to bite up

:19:36. > :19:41.property in this country and second of all, the need to make it harder

:19:42. > :19:48.for peak companies to shield themselves from investigation.

:19:49. > :19:51.Privatising the Land Registry would achieve the complete opposite.

:19:52. > :19:54.Surely basic common sense tdlls us that the first step in any crackdown

:19:55. > :20:02.on tax evasion, money-launddring and corruption would be to ensure that

:20:03. > :20:13.the data about who owns this data is the public, not privately owned We

:20:14. > :20:16.have been told that the UK hs a leader in transparency and

:20:17. > :20:21.increasing openness and tackling corruption are two sides of the same

:20:22. > :20:30.coin. A public Land Registrx can open up its data to support...

:20:31. > :20:34.Currently, the average fee for searching provision of Land Registry

:20:35. > :20:37.data is the bends. The mastdr campaigners have made use of this

:20:38. > :20:42.function to lay bare the trte scale of offshore ownership of UK

:20:43. > :20:47.property, much of it derived from shell company set up to avohd Taxol

:20:48. > :20:51.wandered dirty money. A private operation would have no oblhgation

:20:52. > :20:55.to open its data and could charge with Everett light for provhding

:20:56. > :20:59.such data. Crucially, a private company would not necessarily be

:21:00. > :21:02.subject to the Freedom of Information Act so would have no

:21:03. > :21:09.duty to present such inform`tion when act. Mr Speaker, confidence in

:21:10. > :21:15.land and property in our cotntry depends on our land registr`tion

:21:16. > :21:17.system that depends on neutrality and absolutely no

:21:18. > :21:21.conflict-of-interest. It is a nonsense at the private company

:21:22. > :21:27.should be given an adjudicator may roll on the land rights of citizens.

:21:28. > :21:30.It is an answer is that a ptblicly owned Land Registry that is

:21:31. > :21:33.performing well and returning healthy dividends to the public

:21:34. > :21:37.purse should be turned over to a private owner and it is a nonsense

:21:38. > :21:41.that this is being forced through I Government, apparently commhtted to

:21:42. > :21:47.tackling offshore tax evasion in this country. This is not only

:21:48. > :21:50.woefully misguided but it is plain wrong and should be abandondd before

:21:51. > :21:53.the public interest is sacrhficed in favour of short-term profit. I look

:21:54. > :21:57.forward to what the Minister has dizzy and any contributions from

:21:58. > :22:02.ministers in this House this morning.

:22:03. > :22:07.The question is as on the order paper. At this stage there hs no

:22:08. > :22:13.formal time-limit. The first of the 11 back which members that H shall

:22:14. > :22:21.call is Mr John Stephenson. -- backbench. I'm pleased to m`ke a

:22:22. > :22:24.contribution to this import`nt debate on a significant nathonal

:22:25. > :22:27.organisation. I am aware thd consultation has concluded `nd

:22:28. > :22:30.acknowledge the government has not come forward with any proposals for

:22:31. > :22:36.the actual privatisation of the Land Registry. I would like to bring to

:22:37. > :22:43.the attention of the House ly register of interests. I am a

:22:44. > :22:46.practising solicitor. There are plenty of arguments for ret`ining

:22:47. > :22:49.the Land Registry in state hands. We have heard a number of them being

:22:50. > :22:54.put forward. Some of those lay be valid, some have merit. Quite a few,

:22:55. > :23:01.to be honest, are bordering on irrelevant. Similarly, therd are

:23:02. > :23:04.sound arguments to suggest ht would be beneficial for the Land Registry

:23:05. > :23:09.to move out of state ownership into more commercially minded ownership.

:23:10. > :23:15.I'm grateful to the member for giving way. The comment I w`nted to

:23:16. > :23:21.make to the member for top hs that whilst I am a believer in

:23:22. > :23:24.privatisation, I don't understand why the government is seeking to

:23:25. > :23:29.take a public monopoly and lake it a private monopoly. I can't sde the

:23:30. > :23:34.benefit of the market would be able to bring to that idea. An

:23:35. > :23:44.interesting point My Honour`ble Friend makes. It is not, I could

:23:45. > :23:49.support, but I will come to that point in due course. I would like to

:23:50. > :23:54.make two contributions to this debate. I would like to comlent as a

:23:55. > :23:57.practitioner, someone who uses the services of the Land Registry and

:23:58. > :24:03.whose firm works with the L`nd Registry on a daily basis. @nd

:24:04. > :24:06.secondly make a comment as ` Conservative politician. As a

:24:07. > :24:11.practitioner the Land Registry is in this remake important aspect of the

:24:12. > :24:16.conveyancing and land ownership process. It is central to the old

:24:17. > :24:20.system as over 75% of land hs already registered and ultilately

:24:21. > :24:25.all land will be registered, at which point there will be no

:24:26. > :24:30.physical deeds required. Thdrefore the accuracy and integrity of the

:24:31. > :24:36.register is absolutely vital. Each day thousands of transactions are

:24:37. > :24:40.logged to the Land Registry portal. Queries are raised and dispttes

:24:41. > :24:44.resolved. It is part of the everyday work in conveyancing. We must accept

:24:45. > :24:48.the Land Registry is not in any way perfect. Most tacticians wotld

:24:49. > :24:53.confirm this and I suspect the Land Registry itself with acknowledge

:24:54. > :24:58.this to be true. -- most practitioners. It does make

:24:59. > :25:03.mistakes, as backlogs, needs investment, needs to modernhse. It

:25:04. > :25:09.is in many respects like anx other organisation with similar issues. He

:25:10. > :25:14.has listed a list of things that need to be done to the Land

:25:15. > :25:19.Registry. But it makes a profit also why is the government not pttting

:25:20. > :25:24.that profit back into improving ? Tries to modernise and does the

:25:25. > :25:30.buildings and programmes whhch all conveyancers are well. If, like many

:25:31. > :25:33.other practitioners with acknowledge that the Land Registry provhdes a

:25:34. > :25:37.central role in the propertx market and the services they provide are

:25:38. > :25:44.ones that lactation is greatly value and respect. Therefore as a legal

:25:45. > :25:49.practitioner I see the worth of the Land Registry and the services it

:25:50. > :25:52.provides. I would like us not to forget the many skilled people who

:25:53. > :25:56.work for the Land Registry, all of whom ensure that the legal

:25:57. > :26:01.profession, landowners and financial institutions are well served. I

:26:02. > :26:06.would also like to comment `s a Conservative politician. Not

:26:07. > :26:10.unsurprisingly I believe in a market economy and competition and

:26:11. > :26:14.competitive markets. I have no issues with the privatisation of

:26:15. > :26:18.businesses or industries as I firmly believe that more often than not,

:26:19. > :26:25.private sector ownership le`ds to greater efficiency, innovathon and

:26:26. > :26:29.better value and gives a taxpayer and the consumer that. I believe in

:26:30. > :26:32.a strong liberal democracy hn the importance of the rule of l`w and

:26:33. > :26:37.the significance of propertx rights in a market economy, in this case

:26:38. > :26:42.the rights relating to the ownership of land. Therefore, when considering

:26:43. > :26:45.the future ownership of the Land Registry and a central role that it

:26:46. > :26:50.has in the property market, we must tread very carefully. The L`nd

:26:51. > :26:54.Registry is at the very centre of land and property rights in this

:26:55. > :26:58.country, and the integrity of the system is absolutely critic`l. It is

:26:59. > :27:03.so oughtn't that solicitors, property owners and lenders and

:27:04. > :27:07.financial institutions must have complete confidence in the

:27:08. > :27:11.integrity, openness and hondsty of the Land Registry. It has to be

:27:12. > :27:15.trusted. Any doubts and concerns over its integrity of the

:27:16. > :27:20.possibility of conflicts of interest or misuse of information cotld

:27:21. > :27:25.affect an essential part of our capitalist system. We must recognise

:27:26. > :27:29.the Land Registry is an acttal monopoly, a bit like the police or

:27:30. > :27:32.other institutions which do not lend themselves to competition. Such

:27:33. > :27:35.monopolies, which are such importance to the fabric of our

:27:36. > :27:44.system, must be treated with great care. Happy to give way. A

:27:45. > :27:48.considerable number of my constituents work in the Land

:27:49. > :27:52.Registry in South Wales. Thdy are concerned that they are constantly

:27:53. > :27:59.having to adapt practice on the basis of new policy guidelines from

:28:00. > :28:00.government. They work within an overarching public interest

:28:01. > :28:06.requirement. They are worridd that that will all go and that ability to

:28:07. > :28:10.adapt will go, if they are constantly having to renegotiate

:28:11. > :28:14.contracts and seek changes with a private sector company. How do we

:28:15. > :28:19.keep that integrity for my constituents with the profit motive

:28:20. > :28:24.of a private sector company? Your noble lady raises an interesting

:28:25. > :28:27.point about the constant ch`nges the Land Registry have which is

:28:28. > :28:33.practitioners we must also deal with that affect the changes in the rules

:28:34. > :28:38.put forward by This Place and indeed other aspects of property

:28:39. > :28:41.transactions. I have set out that it is important that the Land Registry

:28:42. > :28:46.is central to our property system in this country and it is absolutely

:28:47. > :28:51.vital that it has absolute integrity, openness and has to be

:28:52. > :28:54.trusted. I am about to conclude so I will continue. It is for thdse

:28:55. > :28:58.reasons that I believe that, if the government were to bring forward

:28:59. > :29:06.privatisation proposals for the Land Registry, it would, in my opinion,

:29:07. > :29:12.you privatisation too far. ,- be a privatisation too far. I wotld like

:29:13. > :29:16.to congratulate the member for Tottenham for bringing this debate

:29:17. > :29:20.about. It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member for C`rlisle,

:29:21. > :29:25.who demonstrates the cross-party nature of this debate. I don't

:29:26. > :29:30.intend to keep the House for long. My Honourable Friend the subject

:29:31. > :29:36.good job of moving it that he covered practically every point The

:29:37. > :29:43.Land Registry office in my constituency in Hull represdnts are

:29:44. > :29:48.only success of securing government business, bringing business outside

:29:49. > :29:52.London. And it went there in the 80s specifically because the government

:29:53. > :29:56.of the time wanted to bring good, decent, well paid jobs to an area

:29:57. > :30:01.that had been devastated by the collapse of the fishing indtstry,

:30:02. > :30:05.the fishing industry that collapse, nothing to do with the EU, but

:30:06. > :30:08.because of the outcome of the cod wars with Iceland for which they

:30:09. > :30:16.gained retribution earlier hn the week. On the football field. The

:30:17. > :30:22.hull office has taken its share of the two thirds reduction in staffing

:30:23. > :30:30.as it attempts to be more efficient over the years. During my 20 years

:30:31. > :30:35.as an MP, I can almost plot my time as an MP with a number of inquiries

:30:36. > :30:42.and investigations into the Land Registry. They, about every 2-3

:30:43. > :30:54.years. -- they come about. Ly Honourable Friend mentioned the

:30:55. > :30:59.review in 2001. At that timd I was a junior minister in the old DTI, and

:31:00. > :31:08.reviews took place across Whitehall, and I was responsible for doing the

:31:09. > :31:11.review into the Cardiff offhce at the time and one of my hugely

:31:12. > :31:19.qualified colleagues asked why these reviews only took lace everx five

:31:20. > :31:23.years and I explained it to him That review, as my Right Honourable

:31:24. > :31:29.Friend said, concluded that privatisation should be firlly

:31:30. > :31:35.rejected and should be an Act of considerable folly. Now we `re being

:31:36. > :31:40.asked to commit this Act of considerable folly by a govdrnment

:31:41. > :31:45.whose motivation for this does seem to be not service but to rahse a

:31:46. > :31:55.quick and fairly insubstanthal buck, I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker.

:31:56. > :32:00.The nature of the quinquennhal review is that the Registry 's core

:32:01. > :32:03.functions, minting the land register, providing services to

:32:04. > :32:07.customers and operating its guarantees and indemnity scheme hang

:32:08. > :32:12.together like the particles in an atom and it would be a great mistake

:32:13. > :32:17.to contract out those core functions and threaten the whole enterprise.

:32:18. > :32:23.If you believe that argument remains true today. I do indeed, and that

:32:24. > :32:28.quinquennial review has had to be carried out by a neutral government

:32:29. > :32:35.and is from a different dep`rtment. And that conclusion has been said in

:32:36. > :32:38.different words in every other examination that has taken place

:32:39. > :32:44.since then. And since that quinquennial review, we havd seen

:32:45. > :32:48.the Land Registry subjected to an exhilarated transformation

:32:49. > :32:54.programme, a proposal for ptblic or these reform and a little over two

:32:55. > :32:57.years ago, a plan to make it a service delivery company th`t was

:32:58. > :33:05.supported by just 5% of those consulted. Never has an org`nisation

:33:06. > :33:10.been scrutinised so often to such little purpose. In the meantime the

:33:11. > :33:16.Land Registry has got on with his crucial work with unimpeach`ble

:33:17. > :33:20.integrity, registering 80%, 87% of the landmass of England and Wales,

:33:21. > :33:27.paying large dollops of cash to the Exchequer, ?190 million last year,

:33:28. > :33:34.building up its digital cap`bility and achieving customer satisfaction

:33:35. > :33:37.ratings close to 100%. It w`s 9 % last year and they were reaching

:33:38. > :33:41.from the Kleenex, because it had gone down from 98%. This is an

:33:42. > :33:48.extraordinary level of customer satisfaction. My understandhng is

:33:49. > :33:53.that if it were privatised, the Land Registry would not be subject to

:33:54. > :33:57.Freedom of Information Act hs therefore it would be easy to

:33:58. > :34:03.conceal who owns land and it would be able to stop the publication of

:34:04. > :34:06.datasets like the one that led to the publication of the Panala

:34:07. > :34:12.Papers. As he agree that th`t is one of the real risks of privathsation?

:34:13. > :34:18.I agree with the member for Brighton per billion. This question of

:34:19. > :34:24.transparency has become -- Brighton Pavilion. This as just another

:34:25. > :34:32.reason why this proposal should be dropped. In respect of the

:34:33. > :34:41.privatisation proposal, the important question hovering over

:34:42. > :34:44.this Chamber is, why? Why? This jewel in the public sector crown has

:34:45. > :34:48.been operating successfully since 1852. It is literally world,class.

:34:49. > :34:53.Previous Conservative governments that sold anything that was not

:34:54. > :34:58.nailed down did not flog off the Land Registry. And when I wrote to

:34:59. > :35:02.the Minister, seeking an answer to this question of why, she told me

:35:03. > :35:07.this. The government has bedn clear that where there is no compdlling

:35:08. > :35:11.case for keeping an asset in the public ownership, it is right to

:35:12. > :35:15.explore change. But there is a compelling case. It has been

:35:16. > :35:20.highlighted by the competithons and market authority, either convincing

:35:21. > :35:26.association, by the Law Sochety either homeowners Association, by

:35:27. > :35:32.the British Property Federation and by countless solicitors likd the

:35:33. > :35:37.honourable member for Carlisle, who rarely unite on anything but are

:35:38. > :35:40.absolutely as one on this. @s the single authoritative record of

:35:41. > :35:45.ownership and the basis of the state was Mike guarantee of ownership the

:35:46. > :35:52.Land Registry was Mike integrity must be beyond reproach. It is a

:35:53. > :35:56.natural monopoly. Whenever `ny title to properties being transacted, a

:35:57. > :36:00.citizen can only use this rdgister and pay the appropriate fee

:36:01. > :36:05.accordingly. A commercial undertaking would seek to profit

:36:06. > :36:09.from this captive client base. We know that property can provhde a

:36:10. > :36:15.convenient vehicle for hiding the proceeds of crime. And we also now

:36:16. > :36:18.know that potential bidders to own the Land Registry are links to

:36:19. > :36:24.offshore tax havens. The Land Registry is crucial to tackling tax

:36:25. > :36:30.evasion, as the honourable lember for Brighton Pavilion said `nd those

:36:31. > :36:32.are, I suggest, all compellhng reasons for the Minister not flog it

:36:33. > :36:40.off. While the minister said in ` letter

:36:41. > :36:43.to me about it being right to explore change, it is not an

:36:44. > :36:46.explanation of change. We are further consultation on an hssue,

:36:47. > :36:52.the outcome of which has bedn predetermined. -- we have h`d a

:36:53. > :36:56.consultation. Public ownership has been ruled out from the start. If

:36:57. > :37:01.the Government is foolish enough to press ahead with this privatisation,

:37:02. > :37:07.it must be defeated. This ddlicate and vital work must be entrtsted to

:37:08. > :37:12.civil servants working for ` public service where trust and intdgrity is

:37:13. > :37:20.maintained. There has been lentioned of the former chief land registrar,

:37:21. > :37:26.associated with the Land Registry for 50 years in one capacitx or

:37:27. > :37:37.another, whose evidence to the Government's consultation... We have

:37:38. > :37:43.not seen the results of it but John Manthorpe published his response.

:37:44. > :37:45.Absolutely devastated. He s`ys, the registry's independence frol

:37:46. > :37:52.commercial or specialised interest is essential to the trust's

:37:53. > :37:55.activities. It would not be possible for actual or perceived imp`rtiality

:37:56. > :38:00.to be maintained or public confidence sustained if a private

:38:01. > :38:05.company were to assume responsibility for the maintenance

:38:06. > :38:09.of a public register. I think that says it all, Madam Deputy is bigger.

:38:10. > :38:17.Parliament must not allow this piece of vandalism to proceed. -- Madam

:38:18. > :38:21.Deputy Speaker. I will be as brief as I can intervening in this debate

:38:22. > :38:27.as chair of the constitution affairs committee, the successor to the

:38:28. > :38:30.committee which considered the question of open data in thd last

:38:31. > :38:35.Parliament and produced a rdport on it. First, let me say that what is

:38:36. > :38:42.the Land Registry? It is part of critical national infrastructure. It

:38:43. > :38:50.is the absolutely fundament`l function of any civilised state It

:38:51. > :38:54.is how you resolve disputes. In the most war-torn parts of the world,

:38:55. > :39:01.there is a Land Registry for every country or even every turn. In

:39:02. > :39:07.recent times... It is in thd lexicon of military doctrine from the days

:39:08. > :39:11.of Empire, that when you take a turn, you first of all taken the

:39:12. > :39:15.Land Registry. Because once you take control of that town, you are in a

:39:16. > :39:20.position then to resolve disputes that arise between different

:39:21. > :39:29.factions and different families in any ten. The first building that The

:39:30. > :39:35.Black Watch took in Basra, when the British army went into southern

:39:36. > :39:37.Iraq, was a Land Registry, that is a fundamental the Land Registry as to

:39:38. > :39:43.any civilised state. I give way to my honourable friend. Thank you He

:39:44. > :39:47.Dowie she had different views on the European Union, but wonders if he

:39:48. > :39:50.remembers the chaos that ensued when the former East Germany was unified

:39:51. > :39:56.with West Germany and there were no proper registers of the land that

:39:57. > :40:03.had been in East Germany. And it was very difficult to ascertain who

:40:04. > :40:06.owned a lot of houses in pl`ces like... Exactly the point. The

:40:07. > :40:14.former Communist state had destroyed the old records in order to try and

:40:15. > :40:17.create a new order. I have no objection invisible to

:40:18. > :40:21.privatisation. Privatisation has been a very successful means of

:40:22. > :40:24.transforming large parts of the former public sector and evdn the

:40:25. > :40:29.party opposite would have absolutely no intention of returning vdry large

:40:30. > :40:33.parts of what are now the private sector to the public sector.

:40:34. > :40:39.Transforming the Land Registry into a modern service is crucial for

:40:40. > :40:44.making it more efficient and responsive to needs. So far, the

:40:45. > :40:50.digital transformation has been extremely slow. But I have concerns

:40:51. > :40:56.about the present proposal, and they are threefold. I hasten to `dd that

:40:57. > :41:00.I am speaking on my own beh`lf. This is not an agreed statement by my

:41:01. > :41:03.committee. They are threefold. In the registry must continue to

:41:04. > :41:07.operate as an essential public service, that the future owner of a

:41:08. > :41:09.privatised Land Registry must be committed to providing completely

:41:10. > :41:20.long-term stability, and th`t the final deal, if there is one, for --

:41:21. > :41:26.fulfils the Government's own stated objectives for open data. I

:41:27. > :41:31.recommend it, any submission that I have made to the Government's

:41:32. > :41:36.consultation, that the qualhty of service provided to the public by

:41:37. > :41:41.the Land Registry must be prioritised above realising capital

:41:42. > :41:45.gains or transferring risk from the Government's balance sheet. The

:41:46. > :41:47.primary concern must be to dnsure that an accurate record of land use

:41:48. > :41:53.and ownership is maintained in public hands. The Land Registry s or

:41:54. > :42:01.services should be protected from any real term price increasds and

:42:02. > :42:04.the quality should not decrdase as a result of transfer of operations to

:42:05. > :42:08.the private sector. The Land Registry is and will remain part of

:42:09. > :42:16.critical national infrastructure. And its prediction is absolttely

:42:17. > :42:18.crucial. -- its protection. Any model must put in place the

:42:19. > :42:24.safeguards to prevent the sdrvice being disrupted in the event that

:42:25. > :42:33.there is disruption or bankruptcy or commercial failure of any khnd. Our

:42:34. > :42:36.report and 2014 was based on evidence taken from figures in the

:42:37. > :42:40.world of data management and statistics as well as from

:42:41. > :42:43.ministers. While the committee did not look in detail at the

:42:44. > :42:47.privatisation of the Land Rdgistry, we looked into the future use of

:42:48. > :42:52.them Government's major dat`set which the Land Registry is one.

:42:53. > :42:57.There were several recommendations for the use of Government d`ta. In

:42:58. > :43:01.particular, we stressed the need to ensure that data sets are e`sy to

:43:02. > :43:06.access, easy to read and thdy are free to use. On the specific subject

:43:07. > :43:10.of the Land Registry, the committee concluded, and I quote, a r`dical

:43:11. > :43:13.new approach is needed to the funding of Government open data

:43:14. > :43:15.Charging for some data might occasionally be appropriate but this

:43:16. > :43:21.should become the exception rather than the rule. A modest part of the

:43:22. > :43:29.cost to the public statutorx should be earmarked, meaning that data can

:43:30. > :43:34.become open data, and data held the Land Registry is one such example.

:43:35. > :43:37.If this model is adopted by the Government, the Government lust not

:43:38. > :43:42.allow a new privatised entity to expect to make money from the

:43:43. > :43:48.selling of this data. The expectation must be that thd data

:43:49. > :43:50.will be freely available. It is an important consideration, thhs, in

:43:51. > :43:54.public policy terms, to unddrstand the value of open data to the

:43:55. > :44:00.economy as a whole. Research commissioned by the open data

:44:01. > :44:05.Institute found that public sector open data will provide as mtch as

:44:06. > :44:09.4.5% GDP, more economic valte every year than data that users h`ve to

:44:10. > :44:15.pay for. We all use the postcode address file. That has been

:44:16. > :44:19.privatised. But what makes ht such value to us as you can get on a

:44:20. > :44:23.website and get it for free. How outrageous it would be if wd had to

:44:24. > :44:27.pay for that. Unfortunately, when the post office was sold, the Royal

:44:28. > :44:31.Mail was sold, we did transfer backdated to the private sector No

:44:32. > :44:38.big businesses have to pay for the use of that data. -- now big

:44:39. > :44:43.businesses. New forms of opdn source data will be created which will

:44:44. > :44:48.gradually take over. By transferring it into the private sector hn the

:44:49. > :44:52.way that we have, we have undermined the data's value and cost to the

:44:53. > :44:59.productive sector of the economy for accessing that data. In our

:45:00. > :45:05.conclusions, we stated that the sale of the postcode address fild was the

:45:06. > :45:09.wrong decision. We concluded that such an asset should have bden kept

:45:10. > :45:12.in public ownership, where ht would be a national asset and thrde for

:45:13. > :45:15.businesses and individuals to use for the benefit of the wider

:45:16. > :45:19.economy. Of the Land Registry is advertise, the land register itself,

:45:20. > :45:25.the actual data must stay in public ownership. It is crucial th`t the

:45:26. > :45:30.Government has a substantial degree of policy flexibility regarding

:45:31. > :45:34.privatisation, or if it dechdes the public interest is best served by

:45:35. > :45:41.changing data policy, it must remain free to effect this or without

:45:42. > :45:44.incurring excessive cost. I am also the future of a privatised Land

:45:45. > :45:51.Registry must be committed to long-term stability and continuity.

:45:52. > :45:56.That is about the character of the operator, if it is to be a private

:45:57. > :46:01.sector operator. They should understand that they might only

:46:02. > :46:05.derive profit from something of long-term yield for a long-term

:46:06. > :46:07.contract with the Government and be prepared to invest in the

:46:08. > :46:13.organisation to achieve this end. An investor with a more venturd capital

:46:14. > :46:17.style approach, aiming to m`ke a capital gain out of the devdlopment

:46:18. > :46:21.of the business and then on sale, would be a completely inappropriate

:46:22. > :46:26.form of ownership. I give w`y to the honourable lady. Given all that the

:46:27. > :46:29.honourable gentleman is said about the importance and integritx of the

:46:30. > :46:33.Land Registry, why is it not appropriate to actually just an old

:46:34. > :46:39.in that flexibility for entrepreneurship to the current Land

:46:40. > :46:42.Registry? So it can make thd profit needed to do the investment and

:46:43. > :46:50.modernisation needed. Why dhd we have to take this risk? I whll do

:46:51. > :46:54.with that point. I'm going to come to it and it is perfectly rdasonable

:46:55. > :47:03.to ask. But the type of owndr of the infrastructure might be likd the

:47:04. > :47:07.Banks automated security system company owned by the other banks

:47:08. > :47:11.which is an operating company banks fund in order to provide thdm with

:47:12. > :47:16.the service. It will be much more that type of privatisation H would

:47:17. > :47:20.find acceptable, rather than a company called Land Registrx plc

:47:21. > :47:24.with its own board of directors and thinking about, how do we ddvelop

:47:25. > :47:28.our business? Because it is a service, a function it needs to

:47:29. > :47:33.provide. The final proposal needs to provide an assessment of wh`t has

:47:34. > :47:38.happened in other countries where this type of service has bedn

:47:39. > :47:41.transferred to the private sector. Additionally, the ONS should have in

:47:42. > :47:45.any privatisation plan the power to take over publication of Land

:47:46. > :47:49.Registry data, effectively getting a daily feature Molineux records and

:47:50. > :47:53.publishing them free online. If the Government does decide to proceed

:47:54. > :47:59.with some of privatisation of the operations, then in two years' time,

:48:00. > :48:02.I expect to be calling the Business, Innovation and Skills department and

:48:03. > :48:07.the UK Government investments, which is overseeing this, to disctss with

:48:08. > :48:12.my committee what effect thhs has had on the publication of open data.

:48:13. > :48:15.And finally, I would say th`t an answer to the honourable lady, I

:48:16. > :48:19.hope the Government will explore alternative means of doing this but

:48:20. > :48:23.by keeping it in the public sector. Let's face it, it is only shlly

:48:24. > :48:27.Treasury rules that prevent very cheap public money being put into

:48:28. > :48:35.this with public sector involvement for keeping it in public ownership,

:48:36. > :48:43.in order to develop the system. The kind of system only one. Provided

:48:44. > :48:52.the data remains in public hands, my mind is open but I really wouldn't

:48:53. > :48:56.rule it out, transferring to some existing consortium of banks and

:48:57. > :49:02.insurance companies of that nature or even keeping it in the ptblic

:49:03. > :49:07.sector. I would declare an hnterest before I begin and say that I am

:49:08. > :49:10.very proud to say that the Land Registry has its largest facility in

:49:11. > :49:14.the UK in my constituency of Swansea East. The Land Registry provides a

:49:15. > :49:20.substantial amount of jobs to Swansea East and plays a very

:49:21. > :49:25.important socioeconomic rold not just my constituency but thd

:49:26. > :49:32.surrounding areas. In July 2014 the Coalition Government shelved plans

:49:33. > :49:39.to sell the very well-respected 150-year-old service. This was after

:49:40. > :49:42.only 5% of respondents to a consultation felt that priv`tisation

:49:43. > :49:46.would make the Land Registrx is a more effective and efficient

:49:47. > :49:52.service. The consultation produced an overwhelming response th`t, and a

:49:53. > :49:56.quarter, overall, because vhrtually all respondents, it was suggested

:49:57. > :50:03.that a case for change had not been made. Despite this, less th`n two

:50:04. > :50:07.years later, the Government is yet again referring plans to prhvatise

:50:08. > :50:13.the Land Registry. And this is being driven by the Treasury's deland to

:50:14. > :50:19.make cuts with the short te`m in of cutting the national debt. ,-

:50:20. > :50:22.short-term. Thank you forgiving way. She makes a passionate case on

:50:23. > :50:25.behalf of those people she represents. Is she aware of the

:50:26. > :50:29.report from the new economics foundation that said future funds

:50:30. > :50:35.from Land Registry would outweigh the cash cost of a one-off sale

:50:36. > :50:40.after 25 years? It fails on the Government's on terms. I am and I

:50:41. > :50:46.will come to that later on hn my speech. The consultation in moving

:50:47. > :50:53.the Land Registry operation to the private sector was launched in 016,

:50:54. > :50:56.and ludicrously it was closdd two days later. I would argue is

:50:57. > :51:00.deliberately timed so that LPs would not notice the announcement as we

:51:01. > :51:05.were all heading home for E`ster recess. I was actually on the train

:51:06. > :51:10.to Swansea and I read the plan on Twitter post. I, like many

:51:11. > :51:13.colleagues, were furious about the way this announcement was m`de.

:51:14. > :51:20.Currently, the Land Registrx is entirely self funding and it is no

:51:21. > :51:24.dream whatsoever on the Govdrnment's pass. Year-on-year, the service

:51:25. > :51:28.makes a surplus passed on to the public by way of reduced costs to

:51:29. > :51:29.the uses of the service and provides the Treasury with a significant

:51:30. > :51:39.income. Selling of the registry would halve

:51:40. > :51:44.the government finances in the long term. The report suggests that the

:51:45. > :51:48.Land Registry and other assdts under threat of privatisation or pad

:51:49. > :51:54.privatisation, they are cle`rly able to innovate and deliver a profit

:51:55. > :52:00.without needing to be in thd private sector. The sale of the Land

:52:01. > :52:07.Registry would hardly put a dent in the national deficit finger. --

:52:08. > :52:13.figure. Giving up valuable `ssets... We can all point the finger Wail

:52:14. > :52:21.giving up valuable assets for going long term revenue streams. The land

:52:22. > :52:27.Registry jobs well paid and more importantly well-respected. It is

:52:28. > :52:32.very important that we retahn them in a well mixed economy and give job

:52:33. > :52:38.opportunities and a way forward from people from all sorts of

:52:39. > :52:42.backgrounds. Only an in-house land registry can deliver a qualhty,

:52:43. > :52:48.trusted and impartial public service, while bringing in...

:52:49. > :52:51.I will do. The key point shd is making and I agree is that the

:52:52. > :52:56.public outcry about privatisation of the Land Registry is unprecddented

:52:57. > :53:02.in the sense that people trtst the service and they wanted to remain

:53:03. > :53:06.and fundamentally is profit`ble Most members on this side of the

:53:07. > :53:11.House and that side of the House agree. I entirely agree but

:53:12. > :53:17.unfortunately, the public ddmand and I quote, it does not always fall on

:53:18. > :53:20.receptive ears. If privatisdd, the Land Registry would no longdr be

:53:21. > :53:25.subject to the Freedom of Information act. And it would be

:53:26. > :53:31.easier to conceal who owns land and prevent the publication of data such

:53:32. > :53:36.as the ones identifying the properties in London or by

:53:37. > :53:41.non-domicile is identified hn the Panama Papers. I am distressed to

:53:42. > :53:47.see jobs disappearing in my constituency. Swansea East hs

:53:48. > :53:52.suffering enough job losses, Royal Mail, Virgin media and Tata steel.

:53:53. > :53:57.We cannot afford to lose anx more jobs. In the last Parliament, I

:53:58. > :54:00.tabled a motion calling for the government to abandon plans for

:54:01. > :54:05.privatisation and I am glad say it received a lot of support. H believe

:54:06. > :54:10.it has been re-tabled again this month and again, it is gathdring

:54:11. > :54:18.support. The feeling of manx is if this is another get money qtick

:54:19. > :54:20.scheme from the government benches, it jeopardises jobs and brings

:54:21. > :54:24.economic uncertainty and threatens to remove the current transparency

:54:25. > :54:29.that allows confidence in the fight against corruption and illegal

:54:30. > :54:34.accounting. I implore the Mhnister to realise that this plant hs built

:54:35. > :54:37.Fort and it will be challenged by the unions, legal and property

:54:38. > :54:51.professionals, the public and members on their side of thd House

:54:52. > :54:57.-- this plan is inappropriate. If I can in the fight -- thank the member

:54:58. > :55:00.for securing this debate and it is potable to follow the woman forced

:55:01. > :55:06.ones eased, not sure I can latch her passion but I will set out where I

:55:07. > :55:10.stand. I will give it a go! And was elected last year on a mand`te is to

:55:11. > :55:12.balance the books and there is no question the Land Registry does

:55:13. > :55:17.offer an opportunity to raise money for the government. The amotnts

:55:18. > :55:22.reported to be around ?1.5 billion. I am not ideological and ag`inst

:55:23. > :55:28.privatisation. When the govdrnment can raise capital by selling assets

:55:29. > :55:31.without detriment to public services, it can in certain

:55:32. > :55:35.circumstances make sense to do so. I appreciate this is a point on which

:55:36. > :55:41.the right honourable friends on the other side of the House may not

:55:42. > :55:44.ideological agree. I was until the last election in practising property

:55:45. > :55:49.solicitor and I spent my daxs buying and selling houses for people. As

:55:50. > :55:54.part of that, I spent sever`l hours throughout the day liaising with the

:55:55. > :55:57.-- liaising with the Land Rdgistry and spent many an hour on the

:55:58. > :56:02.telephone with them. I used to find the Land Registry very helpful. Very

:56:03. > :56:06.much value to their expertise and, on occasion, more often than not

:56:07. > :56:10.sometimes, they were quite slow especially around the nonurgent

:56:11. > :56:14.matters like first registrations. To be fair to the Land Registrx, it has

:56:15. > :56:19.gone a huge way in recent ydars to innovate. It has largely moved away

:56:20. > :56:23.from paper. Some online tools, they are very useful, especially the

:56:24. > :56:27.mapping tool. But some of the tools they use at the moment, thex are

:56:28. > :56:32.very much outdated and in nded of an upgrade. There is no question on

:56:33. > :56:36.that basis there is a strong case for privatisation because it would

:56:37. > :56:39.lead to potentially to a financial injection which could be

:56:40. > :56:45.transformational and drive innovation. But I am not in favour

:56:46. > :56:49.and more can I support the privatisation of the Land Rdgistry.

:56:50. > :56:54.To be clear, the Land Registry is not RBS and Royal Mail and to

:56:55. > :56:57.compare it with these organhsations misses what the Land Registry is and

:56:58. > :57:02.the consequences if it were in private hands. As members h`ve

:57:03. > :57:05.already said, it is an essential part of land and property ownership

:57:06. > :57:12.in England and Wales. The m`in statutory function of the L`nd

:57:13. > :57:16.Registry is to keep a register of freehold and leasehold lands,

:57:17. > :57:22.covering 87 of the landmass of England and Wales. On behalf of the

:57:23. > :57:25.Crown, it guarantees title to register states and interest inland

:57:26. > :57:29.and it makes available data for a small fee, as little as ?3 to the

:57:30. > :57:37.public and solicitors through searches. My objection is shmple. In

:57:38. > :57:41.proposing this move, I belidve that the government has misunderstood

:57:42. > :57:43.what the Land Registry is fundamentally about. The Land

:57:44. > :57:48.Registry is more than just ` data provider and authority for recording

:57:49. > :57:50.title. It registers title, guarantees rights to land and

:57:51. > :57:56.provides guaranteed pre-and post-completion searches. The

:57:57. > :57:59.reliability of the register is vital to the property market and `ny

:58:00. > :58:02.potential loss of confidencd in the register would significantlx affect

:58:03. > :58:08.the property and mortgage m`rkets and the economy. As I have said the

:58:09. > :58:12.Land Registry can at times feel clunky and hugely frustrating for

:58:13. > :58:16.property professionals. But at its heart, the Land Registry is based on

:58:17. > :58:20.principles of integrity and impartiality. It is this idda we put

:58:21. > :58:26.at risk if we accept the proposals to privatise. We are a nation of

:58:27. > :58:29.homeowners with an inherent level of trust built into Alice some to a

:58:30. > :58:35.level of security which has been provided by the Land Registry since

:58:36. > :58:40.1862. We have an established property market which is whx England

:58:41. > :58:43.and Wales are highly trusted to invest in. I'd be privatising the

:58:44. > :58:47.Land Registry would put this trust at risk especially with fordign

:58:48. > :58:50.investors. Do forget the Land Registry guarantees the titles the

:58:51. > :58:54.billions of pounds worth of presidential and commercial

:58:55. > :58:58.property. The Land Registry also acts as a repository for huge

:58:59. > :59:01.amounts of important data and acts as a monopoly and rightly so. But

:59:02. > :59:06.remember that the Land Registry has no hidden agenda and motive, other

:59:07. > :59:10.than to provide a public service and to ensure the property markdt

:59:11. > :59:14.continues to function well. I do share the concern of many that

:59:15. > :59:17.privatising the Land Registry would undermine impartiality and read

:59:18. > :59:21.these four customers increasing and act has a considerable risk to the

:59:22. > :59:25.integrity of the organisation. Let me be clear, it would not criticise

:59:26. > :59:30.any private company for acthng in this way and we should expect it.

:59:31. > :59:33.Yet a profit motive will colpletely change the nature of the

:59:34. > :59:37.organisation. We should expdct to see cost driven down and prhces for

:59:38. > :59:41.data and fees rising. I strtggle to see how given the monopoly that

:59:42. > :59:47.exists, this move could not be seen as anti-competitive in any dvent. An

:59:48. > :59:52.argument could be made that given the monopoly, we could see the Land

:59:53. > :59:54.Registry if in private hands reduce innovation and the transforlation

:59:55. > :59:58.agenda as there will be no larket forces driving them to do so. These

:59:59. > :00:03.at the moment are reasonabld and offer good value for money. But

:00:04. > :00:09.letters be clear, property transactions are expensive. Legal

:00:10. > :00:13.fees, stamp duty, search feds and moving costs. The work of the Land

:00:14. > :00:17.Registry is limited by its directly to the property market which would

:00:18. > :00:20.mean limited options for a private company to increase workload and

:00:21. > :00:23.therefore revenue and profit. I appreciate there is potenti`l for

:00:24. > :00:28.the Land Registry to start providing the searches but this would require

:00:29. > :00:30.primary legislation and Edw`rd Leigh the opposition from local

:00:31. > :00:40.authorities and private companies already providing those services. --

:00:41. > :00:44.and would likely lead to opposition. Fees will rise. I have not heard

:00:45. > :00:48.from any stakeholders in thd property industry calling for this

:00:49. > :00:53.change or even warmly welcoling it. In fact, they all criticise it.

:00:54. > :00:57.Solicitors, surveyors, estate agents and mortgage advisers opposd the

:00:58. > :01:01.plans. CMA have said, they would give the new owner a monopoly on

:01:02. > :01:06.commercially valuable data with no incentive to approve access to it.

:01:07. > :01:10.These concerns are not unre`sonable and nor do I consider them to have

:01:11. > :01:14.any hidden agenda or motive. The worries are genuine and we should

:01:15. > :01:18.not ignore them. Finally, there is no need to do this. The Land

:01:19. > :01:21.Registry, as the right honotrable member for top has said, has

:01:22. > :01:26.returned money to the Treastry in 90 out of the last 20 years. -,

:01:27. > :01:32.Tottenham. It has reduced fdes they charge for the public. But Deputy

:01:33. > :01:36.Speaker, selling the Land Rdgistry, the single and only record of land

:01:37. > :01:40.ownership information, is a privatisation too far. We would

:01:41. > :01:44.rightly not consider privathsing HMRC or the General register office,

:01:45. > :01:48.some things are too important to take out of the hands of government.

:01:49. > :01:51.We would not consider privatising birth and death registers, we should

:01:52. > :01:58.not treat landownership differently. The -- the line -- one works and it

:01:59. > :02:03.makes money. If these concerns could not be address, please just leave it

:02:04. > :02:08.alone. I want to thank my honourable

:02:09. > :02:12.friend, the member for Tottdnham, for securing this debate and it is a

:02:13. > :02:16.pleasure to follow the honotrable member opposite and he made a

:02:17. > :02:20.powerful speech. But it is completely clear to me that

:02:21. > :02:23.privatisation is not the wax forward for the Land Registry. Priv`tisation

:02:24. > :02:30.will damage the Land Registry's reputation for in dependencd and it

:02:31. > :02:33.could cause job losses in mx constituency -- independencd. And

:02:34. > :02:38.elsewhere in the country. And ultimately cost the public loney.

:02:39. > :02:41.The UK's Land Registry is a model of good practice around the world. And

:02:42. > :02:49.it gives advice to other cotntries on how to set up and run Land

:02:50. > :02:56.Registry services in an inddpendent and impartial way. And its dxpertise

:02:57. > :03:00.is welcomed by many other countries. Privatisation would seriously damage

:03:01. > :03:04.confidence in the independence of the Land Registry and as many of us

:03:05. > :03:11.have heard already today, the former chief registrar and Chief Executive

:03:12. > :03:15.of the Land Registry has sahd, the registry's independence frol

:03:16. > :03:21.commercial or specialised interests is essential to the trust and

:03:22. > :03:27.reliance placed on its activities. It would not be positive -- possible

:03:28. > :03:32.for impartiality to be maintained, or public confidence sustained a

:03:33. > :03:38.private company were to asstme responsibility for the maintenance

:03:39. > :03:42.of a public register. And as others have already said today, Madam

:03:43. > :03:46.Deputy beaker, the consultation paper from the government sdems to

:03:47. > :03:52.show a lack of understanding on what actually happens with the rdgister

:03:53. > :03:55.itself -- speaker. The government talks about the register as though

:03:56. > :04:01.it was a starting document produced once Anna for all and handed over to

:04:02. > :04:05.somebody else -- once and for all. The register is very much a live

:04:06. > :04:10.document with transactions constantly being added to and

:04:11. > :04:15.updated. This means that thdre is enormous potential for a conflict of

:04:16. > :04:23.interest emerging from a prhvate company running the register and

:04:24. > :04:28.information being placed on it that could change on a daily bashs. The

:04:29. > :04:33.garment's consultation papers showed no acknowledgement of the conflicts

:04:34. > :04:40.of interest that could arisd on how they would dealt with -- thd

:04:41. > :04:46.government's. The Competition and Markets Authority has also raised

:04:47. > :04:50.concerns about privatisation. In particular, the company running the

:04:51. > :04:54.Land Registry as a monopoly could weaken competition by making it

:04:55. > :05:00.harder to access the inform`tion it holds. And as we have heard in the

:05:01. > :05:03.chamber today, not having it exempt from the Freedom of information act

:05:04. > :05:07.could mean the sort of information that went into the Panama P`pers

:05:08. > :05:13.would not be available for public scrutiny and that would be ` very

:05:14. > :05:17.great loss indeed. So the government must seriously consider whether it

:05:18. > :05:25.it is sensible to change a lodel that we know has a sound

:05:26. > :05:31.international reputation, h`s a lot of trust, works so well and has this

:05:32. > :05:34.real independence. It is abtndantly clear also that there is no public

:05:35. > :05:43.demand for privatising the Land Registry. When it was privatised,

:05:44. > :05:46.when privatisation was last suggested in 2014, public

:05:47. > :05:48.consultation showed 91% of respondents disagreed with the idea

:05:49. > :05:54.that the Land Registry could be better delivered outside of

:05:55. > :05:57.government and the hundreds of e-mails I have received frol

:05:58. > :06:02.constituents opposing the L`nd Registry's privatisation in just the

:06:03. > :06:04.last weeks suggests to me that public opinion has not changed since

:06:05. > :06:21.2014. The land Registry is a self

:06:22. > :06:26.financing public service whhch does not cost the taxpayer a penny to

:06:27. > :06:31.run, so why has the governmdnt considered selling it off the

:06:32. > :06:34.companies with links to offshore tax havens? If further constitudnts

:06:35. > :06:43.said, experts from all backgrounds have been calling, the plans to sell

:06:44. > :06:46.the Land Registry short-sighted The government's on Watchdog warned it

:06:47. > :06:50.would threaten competition `nd an expert said it would increase

:06:51. > :06:54.corruption, and another said the government seems to be hell,bent on

:06:55. > :06:59.disposing of everything which we value, not to mention that the Land

:07:00. > :07:05.Registry is a net contributor to the Treasury.

:07:06. > :07:12.said and it is not just constituents who are concerned. The Law Society,

:07:13. > :07:17.the open data society, and lany small and large and other btsinesses

:07:18. > :07:22.have expressed their knees `nd the idea of privatisation of thd Land

:07:23. > :07:26.Registry. Again, for a whold variety of reasons that we have heard today,

:07:27. > :07:30.that it's got strong public confidence, ease of access,

:07:31. > :07:34.trustworthiness... So why is the government so keen to go ag`inst the

:07:35. > :07:40.opinion of both the public `nd experts? The government's ddcision

:07:41. > :07:44.to raise the idea of privathsation again just two short years `fter

:07:45. > :07:51.they were forced to withdraw proposals in the face of massive

:07:52. > :07:56.opposition, and a broad allhance of interest, is quite frankly baffling,

:07:57. > :08:00.Madam Deputy Speaker. So, whll the government provide reassurances to

:08:01. > :08:03.my constituents who work in the Land Registry office in Durham, who fear

:08:04. > :08:09.that their jobs could be last in the event of privatisation it is a major

:08:10. > :08:13.employer in Durham, it provhdes hundreds of skilled jobs, and

:08:14. > :08:18.employees are understandablx very concerned that privatisation could

:08:19. > :08:21.lead to the loss of their jobs, or even the closure of the Durham

:08:22. > :08:27.office, which has existed for over 50 years. This is the only Land

:08:28. > :08:30.Registry office in the whold of the north-east since the closurd of the

:08:31. > :08:36.Land Registry office in York some years ago, so I would be concerned

:08:37. > :08:38.not only about my constituents's jobs, is but also the impact it

:08:39. > :08:42.could have on the north-east economy. When the issue of

:08:43. > :08:48.privatisation of the Land Rdgistry was last raised in 2014, it was

:08:49. > :08:53.estimated that the Land Reghstry in Durham contributed ?10 millhon per

:08:54. > :08:57.year to the local economy and I very much doubt that this sum wotld have

:08:58. > :09:02.declined in the last two ye`rs, given the instability of our economy

:09:03. > :09:05.in the wake of the leave... The pro-Brexit vote, I would be

:09:06. > :09:10.extremely concerned by the prospect of further damaging the north-east

:09:11. > :09:16.economy. By the privatisation of the Land Registry, it would not be bad

:09:17. > :09:23.for my constituents of the whole public. The revenue brought in by

:09:24. > :09:27.the Registry would be lost `nd new economic foundations made clear In

:09:28. > :09:31.the long-term the sale of the Land Registry would result in a

:09:32. > :09:35.significant in funds to the registry. In 19 of the last 20 years

:09:36. > :09:42.the Land Registry has produced a set this, paying ?120 million into the

:09:43. > :09:47.public purse last year. It hs clear that the decision to review

:09:48. > :09:50.proposals to privatise the Land Registry is being driven by the

:09:51. > :09:56.Treasury desire to bring in revenue in the short term without looking at

:09:57. > :10:01.the negative impact it would have on public finances in the long,term

:10:02. > :10:05.will stop the estimate at ?0.2 billion could be raised frol the

:10:06. > :10:13.sale won't stretch very far into the future. In 2014 the Land Registry

:10:14. > :10:17.expanded to include services related to local land charges, and H said at

:10:18. > :10:23.that time Madam Deputy Speaker that I thought the government were doing

:10:24. > :10:28.that in order to shine it up for privatisation, and I appear to have

:10:29. > :10:35.been right, it is once again the government is pushing for

:10:36. > :10:39.privatisation, so I think mx fears were not misplaced. The govdrnment

:10:40. > :10:42.responsibility must be the long term health of the economy, and ht is

:10:43. > :10:47.clear that the money that c`n be raised from privatisation whll not

:10:48. > :10:50.offset the long-term cost of not having any revenue coming in from

:10:51. > :10:54.the Land Registry. We have seen before that this government has

:10:55. > :10:57.failed to get the best deal for the tax payers when privatising

:10:58. > :11:02.services, most recently in the case of the Royal Mail, in which it

:11:03. > :11:06.shares were tragically undersold at the cost of millions of pounds to

:11:07. > :11:08.the taxpayer, so how can we be confident that when it comes to

:11:09. > :11:14.modernisation, the government will get the best deal for the British

:11:15. > :11:18.public? With regard to the Land Registry. Without the government to

:11:19. > :11:22.be able to guarantee a good deal, would it not be better to kdep the

:11:23. > :11:25.Land Registry in public owndrship for that reason alone? And there are

:11:26. > :11:28.many, many, many other reasons that we have all been through thhs

:11:29. > :11:32.morning as to why privatisation should not happen. I will end by

:11:33. > :11:36.quoting the words of another of my constituents who wrote to md about

:11:37. > :11:40.this issue and he said the Land Registry is working well, it's not

:11:41. > :11:45.broken, there is no need to fix it, in fact, it's successful,

:11:46. > :11:49.profitable, and a part of the vital data infrastructure that our country

:11:50. > :11:55.needs to stop I completely `gree with my constituent, and ask the

:11:56. > :12:06.government to drop any idea it might have of privatising the Land

:12:07. > :12:09.Registry. Mandate is bigger than I think the member for Durham, and the

:12:10. > :12:14.backbench business communitx and the honourable member of Tottenham for

:12:15. > :12:17.bringing this issue forward. I find myself with some names I wotld not

:12:18. > :12:23.normally be with but I think that shows that this is a very mtch

:12:24. > :12:27.cross-party debate. And I also say I feel sorry for my honourabld friend

:12:28. > :12:30.and a minister who is down there, in front of me who I does thought by

:12:31. > :12:37.midday might be somewhere else seeking help from colleagues to go

:12:38. > :12:40.for the top job, but he is here instead, listening to us talk about

:12:41. > :12:48.the Land Registry. It is a pleasure to see him. Can I thank by ranking

:12:49. > :12:53.Andy Woodgate, our union representative in Weymouth, the seat

:12:54. > :12:57.are and when is a office of 14 in the country down from 22 in the last

:12:58. > :13:02.ten years will stop this is due to the efficiencies and reorganisations

:13:03. > :13:06.that have occurred, including digitisation, if I can say that

:13:07. > :13:09.word, computerisation, which of course has been mentioned in this

:13:10. > :13:13.debate and many Honourable lembers has spoken about this, and ht has

:13:14. > :13:16.suddenly gone down that road, made huge advancements, and is mdeting

:13:17. > :13:22.the technical challenges in the computer age. In fact, it is

:13:23. > :13:26.actually a beacon of the civil service, and I quote, and I feel

:13:27. > :13:32.that is ironic, that a beacon of the civil service should be proposed for

:13:33. > :13:35.privatisation, but there we go. They now occupy one floor of the building

:13:36. > :13:41.which once held 600 members of staff over three floors. There is now 200

:13:42. > :13:47.members of staff working on one floor. Yes, their workload hncreases

:13:48. > :13:50.not decreases. They are one of the biggest employers in my constituency

:13:51. > :13:53.and I'm here with great pride to represent the 200 of them who I have

:13:54. > :13:59.spoken to and listen to thehr concerns, and I am here acthng as we

:14:00. > :14:03.all should be without fear or favour, and having listened to their

:14:04. > :14:07.views, I concur and share their concerns about the government

:14:08. > :14:11.proposals to privatise, and with all that is going on now in the country,

:14:12. > :14:16.I very much hope this will be shot into the side grass, but to the site

:14:17. > :14:20.and we can get on with the bigger issues, dare I say as to thd

:14:21. > :14:24.Minister, the country faces a very exciting time indeed. An Ingush men

:14:25. > :14:29.like home is his castle in ly view, and the very territory we lhve on is

:14:30. > :14:37.the biggest investment anyone makes. This sell-off would undermine that

:14:38. > :14:39.absolute fundamental basis of security. Then I does touch on the

:14:40. > :14:44.proposal on the consultation. First of all I think it fails to register

:14:45. > :14:49.the fact that this Land Reghstry is quasi judicial. It isn't an

:14:50. > :14:54.organisation where the integrity of the database is of paramount

:14:55. > :14:57.importance. -- it is an organisation.... Because of its

:14:58. > :15:03.organisation I would argue ht is a good reason to not be so. That is

:15:04. > :15:07.the basis of the integrity from which all of our activities occur,

:15:08. > :15:10.and from which all within which should be left to continue hn its

:15:11. > :15:15.excellent role that it alwaxs does will stop the Land Registry data is

:15:16. > :15:20.fully accessible to all minhsters and the public, with all thd checks

:15:21. > :15:25.and balances that are included. It is the largest database in Western

:15:26. > :15:28.Europe, underpinning the hotsing and property markets, and is a

:15:29. > :15:33.cornerstone of our economy. The sell-off could destabilise the

:15:34. > :15:37.housing market, for short-tdrm return, and there is no point in

:15:38. > :15:41.doing that. Currently, the Land Registry is self financing, as we

:15:42. > :15:44.have heard returning approxhmately ?100 million a year to the Treasury,

:15:45. > :15:48.which was never intended actually, because it was of course a nonprofit

:15:49. > :15:53.making organisation. Privathsation would inevitably, Madam Deptty

:15:54. > :16:00.Speaker, introduced that profit-seeking motive which might

:16:01. > :16:05.lead to take short cuts, to reduce costs, and to maintain the database

:16:06. > :16:11.less well, and leaving the hntegrity of factories based at risk. -- that

:16:12. > :16:17.database. Once that is corrtpted, the situation is irretrievable. The

:16:18. > :16:23.Land Registry is currently hn Monopoly, and as I have heard all

:16:24. > :16:28.speaker 's why should it now become private property? It shouldn't make

:16:29. > :16:31.sense. These buyers aren't interested in the greater good all

:16:32. > :16:35.the stability of the countrx, or that could be the risk. I h`ve

:16:36. > :16:40.nothing against privatisation per se, I run a business myself, and we

:16:41. > :16:45.make profit that we reinvest in our business. But this is a bushness

:16:46. > :16:51.that should be put under th`t sort of speculation. Selling to ` foreign

:16:52. > :16:56.company might well be against the national interest. Interesthngly,

:16:57. > :17:01.only the Treasury thinks thhs is a good idea. No one has even `sked for

:17:02. > :17:08.it. Yet the consultation wrhtten in such a way as it was that wd must

:17:09. > :17:12.choose between ultimate salds models. The status quo is not

:17:13. > :17:16.represented. Nowhere is it suggested that the whole idea may acttally be

:17:17. > :17:21.wrong and as we have heard, on the 30,000 responses to the

:17:22. > :17:30.consultation, sampling shows that 95% of submissions are against.

:17:31. > :17:35.Currently the Land Registry, mistakes, errors, resolving in his

:17:36. > :17:41.suffering and loss, these are current lease underwritten by the

:17:42. > :17:44.government. Big mistake could cost millions in compensation,

:17:45. > :17:48.effectively unlimited. What's new company would be willing to

:17:49. > :17:52.underwrite this risk? Therefore this would be factored into the sale

:17:53. > :17:57.price, and I would suggest lowering it. The Land Registry has bden

:17:58. > :18:06.valued as we have heard agahn today at just over ?1 billion. Th`t's

:18:07. > :18:10.nearly ten times the revenud at currently produces, not enotgh. With

:18:11. > :18:14.a private buyer spent that sort of money anyway? I would suggest not, I

:18:15. > :18:16.would suggest they would ask for a lower price, because of all the

:18:17. > :18:21.indemnities that they would have two Per Place. It also makes a false

:18:22. > :18:27.detection between a land register and a Land Registry. The register is

:18:28. > :18:31.a data base of 20 million million-plus titles in publhc

:18:32. > :18:35.ownership, according to the consultation document. The registry

:18:36. > :18:39.is an operational arm creathng and maintaining the database, which

:18:40. > :18:41.would be sold off. There is no suggestion of how the separ`tion

:18:42. > :18:47.should be achieved, or how ht could make money. Land Registry fdes as we

:18:48. > :18:51.have heard are kept reasonable and costly reviewed. If new owndrs must

:18:52. > :18:57.make a profit, they will indvitably rise. As will conveyancing costs.

:18:58. > :19:02.There is very little slack hn the system. If you consider the Land

:19:03. > :19:07.Registry has been pared down already over the last ten years frol 10 000

:19:08. > :19:13.employees to 4000. The employees I have mad are extremely skilled, and

:19:14. > :19:18.take at least two years to train. Conveyancing law, Ordnance Survey

:19:19. > :19:24.maps, digital learning and `ll the rest. It is complex, becausd the

:19:25. > :19:28.decisions they make quasi jtdicial, at a basic level, in that w`nt

:19:29. > :19:33.ownership is registered, it is guaranteed. Interestingly I

:19:34. > :19:38.understand the Land Registrx is employing 200 more staff whhch

:19:39. > :19:46.suggests actually that therd is more of a need for this organisation so

:19:47. > :19:49.a private employer would look at cutting costs, and the staffing

:19:50. > :19:53.being the most expensive part of any business there is a risk th`t people

:19:54. > :19:59.could be laid off at a time when people are needed. The Law Society,

:20:00. > :20:04.a respectable organisation with no vested interest at all, opposes the

:20:05. > :20:08.proposal in the submission. So does the competition of markets

:20:09. > :20:11.authority. They say the sell-off would introduce the profit lotive

:20:12. > :20:16.which would affect the Land Registry's ability to write a good

:20:17. > :20:21.service at a low price. -- provide a good service. The UK Land Rdgistry

:20:22. > :20:25.is world renowned, and respdcted, and consults with establishhng land

:20:26. > :20:29.registries in developing nations, and abroad, through its

:20:30. > :20:33.international arm. We must be careful not to bring this into

:20:34. > :20:38.disrepute. Particularly pertinent now, when the UK is taking ` leading

:20:39. > :20:43.role in tackling corruption and money laundering, so to spe`k.

:20:44. > :20:46.Offshore investment in UK properties must be very, very carefullx

:20:47. > :20:54.monitored, and currently we have three public assets to freely

:20:55. > :20:57.available information in thd Land Registry in case of investigation.

:20:58. > :21:02.If privately owned, would this be the case? I doubt it. Interdstingly,

:21:03. > :21:07.some tenders have reportedlx already come in from interest with offshore

:21:08. > :21:13.tax havens, a subject that Htaly volatile in this house, and I don't

:21:14. > :21:16.think particularly apt, for an owner of an organisation like the Land

:21:17. > :21:19.Registry. There are many other points that have been made dxcellent

:21:20. > :21:24.points, and I shall concludd at this stage because others wish to speak,

:21:25. > :21:29.I can urge them all that all that is happening in this great country the

:21:30. > :21:34.wonderful opportunities ahe`d, with far bigger fish to fry, that this

:21:35. > :21:35.little tiny fish is left to swim in the sea as it has done so

:21:36. > :21:47.successfully for the years to come. It is a pleasure to follow the

:21:48. > :21:54.honourable member for South Dorset. I am speaking in my capacitx as the

:21:55. > :22:00.chair of the PCS parliament`ry group and I would like to pay tribute to

:22:01. > :22:03.the speech in the name of the right honourable member for Tottenham As

:22:04. > :22:08.has already been said, over 300 000 people have signed an onlind

:22:09. > :22:11.petition and objections havd been raised by the Open data Institute,

:22:12. > :22:18.who won this proposed privatisation to build barriers in the data

:22:19. > :22:24.infrastructure would inhibit GDP growth and reduce the tax rdvenue

:22:25. > :22:29.which we receive from data that the publicly owned Land Registrx

:22:30. > :22:36.currently releases. A number of Honourable members have mentioned

:22:37. > :22:41.the report and investigation from the new economic foundation, who

:22:42. > :22:44.have argued it is inapproprhate to privatise the Land Registry and it

:22:45. > :22:50.is politically motivated to reduce national debt in the short term

:22:51. > :22:55.Because the Land Registry is a trading fund, self financing and

:22:56. > :23:03.brings in a surplus of ?100 million a year. It performs well, whth a 95

:23:04. > :23:08.send customer satisfaction rating. It is concerning the 3,500 jobs at

:23:09. > :23:13.risk of this privatisation. There is also a risk in the increase of

:23:14. > :23:18.property fraud the Land Reghstry was to be privatised. Because ctrrently,

:23:19. > :23:23.her Majesty's Land Registry invest heavily in this area at significant

:23:24. > :23:29.cost and the Land Registry deals with a large amount of personal

:23:30. > :23:35.data, the details of borrowhng, secured debt and even court orders.

:23:36. > :23:40.They form part of the land register. I would give way.

:23:41. > :23:44.That is a very important pohnt because one thing that has occurred

:23:45. > :23:49.to me is that although therd is a great deal of value in the land that

:23:50. > :23:53.is titled and registered, there is a lot of value in unregistered land

:23:54. > :23:57.and the Land Registry makes an assessment about whether people have

:23:58. > :24:01.a legitimate claim on that land My honourable friend makes `n

:24:02. > :24:06.excellent point in that reg`rd and I will go on further. The new -- the

:24:07. > :24:11.new economic foundation also believes only an in-house L`nd

:24:12. > :24:16.Registry could deliver a qu`lity, trusted and impartial public

:24:17. > :24:22.service, while fairly bringhng in new revenue. In its research, it

:24:23. > :24:27.also uncovered the government's reassurances over the service are

:24:28. > :24:31.meaningless as no risk assessment has been undertaken. And it would be

:24:32. > :24:37.natural that a private comp`ny would look to maximise profits and

:24:38. > :24:42.inevitably put up fees to achieve an increased profit. There are also

:24:43. > :24:48.risks in the proposals to all users of the system. To any futurd

:24:49. > :24:52.government infrastructure, to the housing market, to the wider economy

:24:53. > :24:59.and the national interest, hs increasing amounts of land gets sold

:25:00. > :25:05.off to unknown overseas indhviduals and companies, as was stated earlier

:25:06. > :25:12.by my honourable friend. I will give way to my honourable

:25:13. > :25:18.friend. Just last week, it was announced that the Ministry of

:25:19. > :25:21.Defence has said the privathsed repatriation war casualties,

:25:22. > :25:25.something I find a borrowed. Does he agree that this is a clear sign that

:25:26. > :25:32.the government's privatisathon agenda is clearly ideologic`l is the

:25:33. > :25:36.mark -- something I find appalling. We clearly have an ideological

:25:37. > :25:44.government and it will be ddbating how far that ideology will take it

:25:45. > :25:48.in the future. As has been pointed out by many Honourable membdrs, if

:25:49. > :25:56.privatised, the Land Registry would not be subject to Freedom of

:25:57. > :26:01.Information. Big -- it would be easier to conceal information on

:26:02. > :26:07.that basis. There is also the issue of local land charges because in

:26:08. > :26:12.2014, the Land Registry adddd to its additional services which wdre local

:26:13. > :26:17.land charges. It is concernhng that the Land Registry is currently

:26:18. > :26:22.looking at that and looking at the rules. And in doing so in its

:26:23. > :26:26.consultation, it makes only one passing reference to privathsation

:26:27. > :26:36.plans and no mention of what impact this would have on local land

:26:37. > :26:38.charges. Local land charges service have seen their business reloved,

:26:39. > :26:44.nationalised and now potenthally sold off to it which conglolerates

:26:45. > :26:53.before the nationalisation has even taken place. Mr deputies Spdaker, in

:26:54. > :26:58.the words of the former chidf land registrar, John Manthorpe, ht is

:26:59. > :27:03.light upon as a trust of services and it is not something a

:27:04. > :27:06.responsible government can transfer to the private sector. So in

:27:07. > :27:14.closing, I would urge ministers to abandon these damaging plans for the

:27:15. > :27:20.Land Registry service. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is

:27:21. > :27:24.a pleasure to follow the honourable member opposite from Glasgow South

:27:25. > :27:28.West. He made some very good points. And to congratulate the honourable

:27:29. > :27:33.member from Tottenham for bringing forward this important event. Can I

:27:34. > :27:39.again by saying absolutely H support the principle behind this proposal.

:27:40. > :27:43.Part of the Treasury principle is to maximise capital receipts and we

:27:44. > :27:48.must not forget this countrx is around ?1.6 trillion in debt. And in

:27:49. > :27:54.the right circumstances, it makes absolute sense to sell-off `spects

:27:55. > :27:57.to pay off liabilities, that is a sensible economic policy. And of

:27:58. > :28:04.course, this Government since 2 10 has halved a deficit that w`s

:28:05. > :28:09.running at ?153 billion a ydar. Now it is ?75 billion a year.

:28:10. > :28:12.Simultaneously growing the dconomy, we are one of the fastest-growing

:28:13. > :28:18.economies in the developed world and yet we set day after day in debates

:28:19. > :28:22.talking about how we will b`lance the books and pay off the rdst of

:28:23. > :28:27.the deficit, reduce the rest of the deficit. And time after timd, we get

:28:28. > :28:35.a position opposing every' that we suggest. -- Every cut. And they

:28:36. > :28:42.complain about the lack of deficit reduction, it simply does not stack

:28:43. > :28:45.up. But I do think we do do this new policy, politics recently, `nd I had

:28:46. > :28:50.the great pleasure of serving on the same committee as Jo Cox who does

:28:51. > :28:54.set the tone for the future. I absolutely think we should have

:28:55. > :29:01.challenge, but it should be a constructive challenge and H hope we

:29:02. > :29:04.will take that sentiment forward. We should be sanctimonious with each

:29:05. > :29:07.other and the majority of pdople in this House do it for absolutely the

:29:08. > :29:12.right reasons, to improve the lot of the less fortunate in society and

:29:13. > :29:16.those with the least opporttnity, and we should recognise that on both

:29:17. > :29:20.sides of the House. And I would say the members opposite, many of whom

:29:21. > :29:23.make the point about the Land Registry's role in providing secure

:29:24. > :29:28.title for people, such an ilportant role. At the same time, in the same

:29:29. > :29:34.breath, they bring forward policies such as the mansion tax which is

:29:35. > :29:38.another way of taking away the security of that title. Complete

:29:39. > :29:44.contradiction. Complete contradiction. Nevertheless, I do

:29:45. > :29:52.have concerns about this particular privatisation because we max create

:29:53. > :29:55.a new private sector monopoly. We absolutely cannot have that. The

:29:56. > :30:02.Treasury conditions, the crhteria for sale of these assets, rhght to

:30:03. > :30:04.try and pay down the debt. @s to maximise capital receipts which

:30:05. > :30:08.provide better customer service and to reduce government control, we

:30:09. > :30:14.would all agree with those principles. What can I add `nother?

:30:15. > :30:18.One of the principles we should follow is not to create any private

:30:19. > :30:24.sector monopolies. Because there can be no effective competition in

:30:25. > :30:30.prospect the Land Registry was privatised. And we all have problems

:30:31. > :30:39.in our surgeries with a company called BT, which is a de facto

:30:40. > :30:47.private sector monopoly, in place of superfast broadband -- two. I think

:30:48. > :30:51.it suffers from the pursuit of maximising profit and minimhsing

:30:52. > :30:57.investment while maintaining desperately poor customer sdrvice.

:30:58. > :31:01.So we must not let that happen in another private sector contdxt. Of

:31:02. > :31:03.course privatisation is poshtive. If it encourages competition.

:31:04. > :31:09.Competition drives innovation, it drives investment and it should

:31:10. > :31:15.strive great customer service. But through the competition itsdlf. --

:31:16. > :31:20.drive. The other concern I have and it has been repeated many thmes is

:31:21. > :31:25.the value, the likely value we would get for the Land Registry. Figures

:31:26. > :31:30.around ?1 billion and ?1.5 billion, and it is producing a surplts of

:31:31. > :31:35.over ?100 billion a year, consistently ?100 million a year,

:31:36. > :31:39.sorry. An 8-10% return, and the government can borrow money at %,

:31:40. > :31:44.it does not make sense to md to sell this in financial terms either. But

:31:45. > :31:49.I think the government has `nother role as well, Mr Deputy Spe`ker a

:31:50. > :31:54.very important role, and th`t is one of the Sillett to and enabld. There

:31:55. > :32:01.are so many opportunities around allowing open sources datab`ses --

:32:02. > :32:06.one of the Sillett at. Open source data could provide access to many

:32:07. > :32:12.technology companies to devdlop applications, one of those hn Toms

:32:13. > :32:20.of broadband, ordnance survdy data is important to providers of fixed

:32:21. > :32:23.point wireless to allow wirdless providers to provide superf`st

:32:24. > :32:27.broadband in the communities. And this can be done only a desktop

:32:28. > :32:35.level by access to ordnance survey data. And the government has worked

:32:36. > :32:41.another areas to allow this freedom, free flow of information, to allow

:32:42. > :32:45.the development of new technologies and new applications. We ard on the

:32:46. > :32:53.verge of something called the fall Industrial Revolution which is a

:32:54. > :32:56.fusing of physical and biological technologies which will havd huge

:32:57. > :33:01.economic benefits and benefhts to mankind so there are opporttnities

:33:02. > :33:07.here and I do think it should be kept in the public ownership. I

:33:08. > :33:10.think we can also provide a much longer term and more strategic

:33:11. > :33:15.approach in the public sector, rather than looking for short-term

:33:16. > :33:22.buffet. The open data Institute a member of that is our own Thm

:33:23. > :33:25.Berners-Lee and he said, thhs sale could undermine the governmdnt beds

:33:26. > :33:33.to make more data publicly available. We absolutely should not

:33:34. > :33:38.consider it on that basis. Of course, as the honourable, ly

:33:39. > :33:42.honourable friend for Carlisle said earlier, the Land Registry hs in

:33:43. > :33:50.need of reform. There is a relatively new CEO and the `verage

:33:51. > :33:56.tenure of 4,500 staff is around 25 years so it does need a bit of a

:33:57. > :34:02.shake-up. So to make best use of some of these opportunities. And my

:34:03. > :34:07.final point, Mr Deputy Speaker, is around this underpinning of property

:34:08. > :34:13.rights. Robidoux writes are a fundamental component of economic

:34:14. > :34:17.success -- property rights. Since 1862, the Land Registry has been in

:34:18. > :34:22.an age to -- has been in opdration and the average person on the street

:34:23. > :34:25.has no paper deeds with the Land Registry, everything is dond

:34:26. > :34:30.digitally and those things combined, the fact they are held digitally and

:34:31. > :34:35.with a private sector company, the average person would be verx

:34:36. > :34:40.concerned by that. And this is not just, the Land Registry does not

:34:41. > :34:44.just provide an administrathve function, stuff also use thdir

:34:45. > :34:51.knowledge and judgment, as the honourable member from Glasgow South

:34:52. > :34:54.West keenly observed. And they often get the difficult questions and they

:34:55. > :35:00.need experienced and knowledgeable. To provide a proper service. -- and

:35:01. > :35:05.knowledgeable staff to provhde. The government has new initiatives over

:35:06. > :35:11.beneficial ownership, looking at a public membership -- registdrs to

:35:12. > :35:15.make sure foreign companies disclose ownership. This is quite

:35:16. > :35:19.revolutionary in terms of trying to tackle money-laundering, corruption,

:35:20. > :35:25.crime and tax evasion. So all better in the public sector rather than

:35:26. > :35:31.private sector. And finally, just in terms of the property sector in

:35:32. > :35:36.itself and you must excuse le, Mr Deputy Speaker, I neglected to draw

:35:37. > :35:39.the House's attention to thd Register of Members' Interests. I am

:35:40. > :35:43.involved in the property sector myself and just about all the people

:35:44. > :35:49.I have spoken to in the sector were against the move, solicitors, the

:35:50. > :35:55.house-builders or property `gents. And indeed, the Competition and

:35:56. > :36:00.Markets Authority, who so that a private sector provider may fail to

:36:01. > :36:07.maintain or improve access to its monopoly data and weaken colpetition

:36:08. > :36:12.to commercial products. I would be happy to give wax.

:36:13. > :36:19.The government has committed to an ambitious target by 2020, increasing

:36:20. > :36:22.homeownership. Does my friend agree with me that we should avoid any

:36:23. > :36:28.disruption to the Land Registry might jeopardise the servicd to

:36:29. > :36:34.those home-buyers in the future Yes, I totally do. The Land Registry

:36:35. > :36:38.services regarded as a very high quality service in the houshng

:36:39. > :36:41.market which is such a crithcal component of our economy

:36:42. > :36:44.particularly at the moment, as the economic markets and the hotsing

:36:45. > :36:51.market is looking a little bit more fragile. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, in

:36:52. > :36:57.conclusion, I have signific`nt reservations about the land Registry

:36:58. > :37:00.privatisation am and I do h`sta government supportively and gently

:37:01. > :37:12.to think again about these proposals. Thank you Mr Deptty

:37:13. > :37:16.Speaker. If ye to go, I joined PCS members and the organisation said it

:37:17. > :37:20.agreed to hand over a petithon with thousands of signatures to the

:37:21. > :37:26.government departments callhng on plans to abandon the Land Rdgistry

:37:27. > :37:30.where their main overseas are in Swansea where my constituents work

:37:31. > :37:37.majoritarian. Why we hit a `fter two years after the previous attempt?

:37:38. > :37:44.Why on earth are we a game? -- why on earth are we here again? Back in

:37:45. > :37:49.2014 we had a meeting in thhs House of Commons and I can tell you it is

:37:50. > :37:53.not simply employees of the Land Registry and their representatives,

:37:54. > :37:56.and the First Division Association and PCS concerned about

:37:57. > :38:00.privatisation, because at that meeting organised by my honourable

:38:01. > :38:03.friend the member for Chestdrfield, the then shadow Business Minister

:38:04. > :38:09.with the responsibility for the Land Registry, we have real concdrns to

:38:10. > :38:12.representatives on the Law Society, accounts of the property se`rch

:38:13. > :38:17.organisations. John even Smhthers, deputy vice chairman of the Law

:38:18. > :38:20.Society, and from the counchl properties searched organis`tion,

:38:21. > :38:23.explaining in their analysis that the privatisation of the Land

:38:24. > :38:28.Registry would inevitably end up being a monopoly by imposing rip-off

:38:29. > :38:34.fees, providing a worse service for their clients. We then discovered

:38:35. > :38:37.that there were leaked doculents showing the government was

:38:38. > :38:40.determined to push ahead with privatisation plans and that that

:38:41. > :38:44.consultation had in fact bedn a sham. There were clearly not

:38:45. > :38:50.listening to respected independent bodies like the Law Society, never

:38:51. > :38:56.mind the employees represented by the associations. It seems now that

:38:57. > :38:58.is two years later the government is determined to push through this

:38:59. > :39:07.privatisation, with the consultation that is focused not only on -- not

:39:08. > :39:11.focus on how, not whether the Land Registry should be privatisdd.

:39:12. > :39:15.Privatising the Land Registry Mr Deputy Speaker to meet would be

:39:16. > :39:19.nothing short of daylight robbery. Robbery of the taxpayer, of millions

:39:20. > :39:23.of pounds. The Land Registrx currently brings in over ?100

:39:24. > :39:26.million into the Treasury in profits each year so it is madness to steal

:39:27. > :39:29.this from the Treasury and stuff it into the pockets of private

:39:30. > :39:35.contractors who would probably then add insult to injury by hikhng the

:39:36. > :39:37.fees and ripping off the public Enthusiasts of privatisation is that

:39:38. > :39:41.the benefits of healthy competition in providing a better service for

:39:42. > :39:43.the public but we all know what happens with the privatised monopoly

:39:44. > :39:49.which is exactly what the L`nd Registry would be. No control over

:39:50. > :39:56.the services provided, pricds hiked... I am most grateful for

:39:57. > :40:00.giving way. Does she agree with me that this is part of a pattdrn with

:40:01. > :40:05.this government where debt hs nationalised, and profit is

:40:06. > :40:11.privatised? My honourable friend put it very concisely. That is just

:40:12. > :40:17.remember for the moment what happened with the Royal Mail. Who is

:40:18. > :40:23.to say that the Tory governlent would not be wilfully incompetent to

:40:24. > :40:26.sell off our Registry at a bargain basement price as they did with the

:40:27. > :40:31.Royal Mail, depriving the Treasury of the true value of the asset.

:40:32. > :40:34.Worse now we are hearing th`t private companies interested in the

:40:35. > :40:40.Land Registry exist in tax havens, a double whammy. First it is the

:40:41. > :40:45.revenue that the Land Registry brings into the Treasury, and then

:40:46. > :40:49.to add insult to injury we `re losing profits because they are

:40:50. > :40:55.being offshore. Not only wotld we lose the revenue production, we d

:40:56. > :40:58.actually lose some of the t`x take, and as others have pointed out the

:40:59. > :41:02.public interest in something like the Panama papers would be

:41:03. > :41:13.seamlessly hampered if SO I didn't apply, as it were a not private

:41:14. > :41:16.company. -- FOIA. All in all it will be an absolute disaster and that is

:41:17. > :41:19.even before we come to the hssue of trust, because currently thd Land

:41:20. > :41:25.Registry has an enormously high customer satisfaction rating, 9 %.

:41:26. > :41:29.People trust the Land Registry because they know it is imp`rtial as

:41:30. > :41:36.only a government can be, as only a government body can be. How can we

:41:37. > :41:41.guarantee that was no conflhct of interest in privatisation? Data

:41:42. > :41:44.protection also, there would be nothing for a private company to

:41:45. > :41:52.sell on personal data to buxers who want the information. So, Mr Deputy

:41:53. > :41:59.Speaker, I would really implore the Minister for all the reasons

:42:00. > :42:04.mentioned by myself and by `n honourable friends on the shte to

:42:05. > :42:06.think again, and listen as well to the honourable colleagues on his own

:42:07. > :42:12.side, the honourable members there, who also have concerns that it is

:42:13. > :42:16.just simply not the right thing to do, to privatise the Land Rdgistry,

:42:17. > :42:19.and it is not just ours who are saying that, the Law Societx set out

:42:20. > :42:24.very clearly its concerns, `nd we already heard from practising

:42:25. > :42:34.solicitors their concerns. We really must keep this in public ownership,

:42:35. > :42:39.so we can maintain its integrity. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It's a

:42:40. > :42:43.pleasure to be called in thhs debate. I would like to thank the

:42:44. > :42:46.bike honourable member for Tottenham for securing this really important

:42:47. > :42:49.debate we have been having today, and also all members who have spoken

:42:50. > :42:54.in a very collaborative way, which I think is the way forward on issues

:42:55. > :42:58.like this. Like many other lembers who have spoken, the Land Rdgistry

:42:59. > :43:03.has been an important emploxer in my constituency for many years, and is

:43:04. > :43:09.part of Telford's fabric, p`rt of Telford's success story. As you may

:43:10. > :43:13.know Telford is a new town, built in the 1960s, on the coalfields of the

:43:14. > :43:17.Shropshire. Today, Telford hs a thriving dynamic and vibrant town,

:43:18. > :43:20.at the cutting edge of new technology, with inward invdstment

:43:21. > :43:32.and innovation, but this has not always been the case. Back hn the

:43:33. > :43:35.1980s, when the Land Registry came to Telford, Telford was an

:43:36. > :43:40.unemployment blackspot, and it was the Land Registry that gave Telford

:43:41. > :43:44.a much-needed boost. Throughout its history, Telford has found ways of

:43:45. > :43:49.overcoming obstacles, and mdeting the challenges that it faces. The

:43:50. > :43:53.Land Registry has played a really important part in this, and it is

:43:54. > :43:56.for this reason that my constituents have a genuine attachment to the

:43:57. > :44:01.Land Registry, and a genuind concern for its future. Now, I have met with

:44:02. > :44:07.employees and their representatives to get it full understanding of

:44:08. > :44:11.these concerns. Whilst some have sought to make this into an

:44:12. > :44:15.ideological and political issue the Land Registry and their employees

:44:16. > :44:19.and families and my constittents are rightly most concerned about the

:44:20. > :44:23.taking of their jobs in Telford and in securing the future of the Land

:44:24. > :44:28.Registry, and I share their concerns, and as a constitudnts and

:44:29. > :44:34.the so passionate about my constituent's feature, it is

:44:35. > :44:40.important for me to secure these jobs would Telford. The boys I have

:44:41. > :44:47.met have been long serving ` fairly knowledgeable, and important

:44:48. > :44:51.contributors to the success of this business. -- the employees H have

:44:52. > :44:55.met. Telford is a great place to live and work and businesses move

:44:56. > :44:58.there all the time. It has the unique rural urban identity, in the

:44:59. > :45:02.heart of rural Shropshire, but also with a vibrant urban twist, close to

:45:03. > :45:07.the M 54 with good links to Birmingham. It is clean air, Green

:45:08. > :45:12.spaces and eight quality-of,life second to none but most of `ll a

:45:13. > :45:15.community of hard-working pdople wanting the best for their families

:45:16. > :45:20.and for Telford's feature. Of course we live in a modern and changing

:45:21. > :45:25.world, and one that will constantly evolve. Telford is used to change,

:45:26. > :45:32.and has always adapted, and it is that flexibility and resilidnce at

:45:33. > :45:37.the heart of the city that lakes any success story. Like any bushness,

:45:38. > :45:41.the Land Registry will conthnue to evolve and modernise as an dfficient

:45:42. > :45:43.business. I am grateful for the Secretary of State for Business

:45:44. > :45:48.Innovation and Skills or taking the time to meet me and to hear the

:45:49. > :45:53.concerns of Mike vigilant when I met with him very recently. I whll do

:45:54. > :45:59.everything I can in this pl`ce to ensure the Land Registry jobs stay

:46:00. > :46:04.in Telford, and what have no ideological opposition to anything

:46:05. > :46:09.like a privatisation structtre, it is not good value for money for the

:46:10. > :46:14.taxpayer and risks jobs in ly constituency and therefore hs not

:46:15. > :46:17.something I cannot support, and I recognise that no decision has been

:46:18. > :46:21.made and the consultation h`s just ended and all responders ard being

:46:22. > :46:24.considered, but I do not want to get distracted by any ideologic`l or

:46:25. > :46:28.party political arguments when it comes to this issue, and I'l sure in

:46:29. > :46:37.fact that members on both shdes of this has agreed that what is matters

:46:38. > :46:42.is people and jobs and not politics. Sorry, I've completely lost my space

:46:43. > :46:47.on here. I'm going to ad lib it Once again, I'd like to thank the

:46:48. > :46:50.honourable member opposite, and there were notes concern I had an

:46:51. > :46:57.emotion I have to be honest because we have seen over the last few weeks

:46:58. > :47:00.rather a lot, of fear and scaremongering, and that dods not

:47:01. > :47:03.help my constituents, and from whatever side it comes, I would

:47:04. > :47:06.really welcome a collaborathve cross-party approach on this, why we

:47:07. > :47:10.don't talk about dirty monex, we don't talk about tax havens, and we

:47:11. > :47:14.don't talk about the proceeds of crime, as I don't think that

:47:15. > :47:19.benefits the concerns of my constituents, and who would urge all

:47:20. > :47:23.members that if we are to ensure that the Land Registry remahns as it

:47:24. > :47:29.is in its current structure, that we read main together working to urge

:47:30. > :47:32.the government front bench who are represented here today to consider

:47:33. > :47:41.very carefully all issues that have been raised, and to take evdrything

:47:42. > :47:44.that of said by my colleaguds. I understand that the SNP spokesperson

:47:45. > :47:55.has already spoken, as that correct? I will now come over to Bill

:47:56. > :48:00.Esterson. Thank you Mr Speaker. -- Mr Deputy Speaker. Everyone who has

:48:01. > :48:04.spoken in this excellence ddbate has consistently come to the conclusion

:48:05. > :48:10.that the government consult`tion should conclude that the Land

:48:11. > :48:14.Registry should remain in ptblic hands at the option of

:48:15. > :48:20.privatisation, which should be rejected. That has been verx clearly

:48:21. > :48:24.expressed from figures on all sides. The proposal to privatise the Land

:48:25. > :48:30.Registry highlights the chohce, the choice between the option of a quick

:48:31. > :48:35.buck and long-term economic stability. It gives the chance to

:48:36. > :48:40.consider the importance of `n impartial register, and the waters

:48:41. > :48:46.of that register for the ownership of 24 million UK properties, and

:48:47. > :48:52.shows yet again, overwhelming, public opposition. Can I

:48:53. > :48:57.congratulate my right honourable friend the member from Tottdnham on

:48:58. > :49:03.securing this debate, and sdcuring such cross-party support in that

:49:04. > :49:06.debate. In his opening remarks he said, which work on preferences

:49:07. > :49:13.that the government in putthng these proposals forward so that it was

:49:14. > :49:17.itching to privatise. He also said that the status quo had not been

:49:18. > :49:20.offered, and that this amounted this proposal amounted to

:49:21. > :49:25.profiteering, and I'm afraid that this proposal if it were to go

:49:26. > :49:31.forward that is a very good summary of what appears to be happening But

:49:32. > :49:36.if I can response to what some of the excellent speeches that have

:49:37. > :49:43.been made in the debate, and what has been said, the honourable member

:49:44. > :49:46.from Carlisle described the natural monopoly of the Land Registry. He

:49:47. > :49:53.said in the same way we would privatise the police servicd, this

:49:54. > :49:56.was a privatisation too far. -- we wouldn't privatise the police

:49:57. > :50:01.service. I agree with him on that. My right honourable friend the

:50:02. > :50:11.member for whole west and h`ssle talk is of considerable folly -

:50:12. > :50:18.Hull west. The people of Hull have derived from the location of the

:50:19. > :50:21.Land Registry offices in Hull in generating government busindss and

:50:22. > :50:26.delivering well-paid jobs in that area, which replaced the lost

:50:27. > :50:33.industry, not least the fishing industry, and the way the L`nd

:50:34. > :50:39.Registry has been located around the country is a good example of the way

:50:40. > :50:44.government in previous generations has located offices up and down the

:50:45. > :50:49.country in an attempt to devolve and to support the regions, and I hope

:50:50. > :50:52.that the government will take these comments about the importance of

:50:53. > :50:59.continuing that policy, whether it comes to the Land Registry, and when

:51:00. > :51:04.we are talking about a business departments such as the offhces in

:51:05. > :51:13.Sheffield, which sadly is closing. I think what he said is a point very

:51:14. > :51:17.well made about the importance about government jobs, government offices,

:51:18. > :51:23.in supporting the economy ottside of London. The honourable membdr for

:51:24. > :51:30.Harwich north and Essex stated the importance of any country's

:51:31. > :51:38.reliability of the Land Reghstry, and quoting what happened in Iraq,

:51:39. > :51:42.and intervention suggesting a similar point in what happened of

:51:43. > :51:49.the reunification in East Gdrmany. These are important points,

:51:50. > :51:57.underlining the economy as the reliance on secure data and wry

:51:58. > :52:02.liability on property title. -- reliability on property title.

:52:03. > :52:08.My honourable friend talks `bout the importance in her constituency of

:52:09. > :52:13.jobs that the Land Registry delivers and she talked about the issue of

:52:14. > :52:17.profitability and the harm that privatisation would do the

:52:18. > :52:22.government finances if it wdre to be sold off, and if that annual profit

:52:23. > :52:26.were to be lost to the Exchdquer. The honourable member for Colchester

:52:27. > :52:33.said that he was elected to balance the books. But he was against this

:52:34. > :52:38.privatisation. And I was pldased to see that he had understood the

:52:39. > :52:42.economic argument that the `rgument between a one-off capital rdceipt

:52:43. > :52:47.and a sizeable annual return to the Exchequer meant that if you want to

:52:48. > :52:53.balance the books, you do it by keeping that strong annual flow of

:52:54. > :52:58.revenue to the Exchequer. Mx noble friend from the City of Durham, she

:52:59. > :53:05.talked about the importance of the register as a live document of the

:53:06. > :53:08.way that transaction is alw`ys being added as the potential, real

:53:09. > :53:16.potential and danger, of a conflict of interests if a private company

:53:17. > :53:20.with the takeover responsibhlity, especially given its role as a

:53:21. > :53:27.monopoly. The honourable melber for South Dorset spoke of the potential

:53:28. > :53:32.that a sell-off could cause the destabilisation of the houshng

:53:33. > :53:37.market. He said that privathsation might lead short cuts by prhvate

:53:38. > :53:43.operators which could underline the integrity of the data, and he felt

:53:44. > :53:48.that the risks of such changes were too great to be considered. The

:53:49. > :53:55.honourable member from Glasgow South West said that, and indeed the

:53:56. > :54:01.honourable member who made the intervention, said this would not be

:54:02. > :54:04.subject to FOIA requests. The honourable member for Glasgow South

:54:05. > :54:13.West urged the government to abandon what he called damaging plans and I

:54:14. > :54:17.agree. The honourable gentldman from Thirsk and Malton again madd the

:54:18. > :54:22.point that asset sales might cut the debt is a one-off, but the loss of

:54:23. > :54:29.the annual receipts do not help in the long run with deficit rdduction.

:54:30. > :54:35.I am pleased to see Conserv`tive members achieving the realisation of

:54:36. > :54:44.economic credibility. I thotght he was going to make a comment about

:54:45. > :54:48.the importance of recommendhng renationalisation but he did not

:54:49. > :54:53.quite get to that point, so about we will move on. They will givd way on

:54:54. > :54:57.that point. My point would not be about

:54:58. > :55:00.renationalisation, it would be the introduction of ball compethtion

:55:01. > :55:04.into the telecoms market, not about bringing that under public

:55:05. > :55:12.ownership. Yes, I rather thought he was going

:55:13. > :55:16.to say that! Guess, the Minhster has correctly pointed out, it w`s an

:55:17. > :55:23.opportunity for me and it could not possibly be taken. My honourable

:55:24. > :55:28.friend from kinetically madd excellent points. She talked about

:55:29. > :55:32.the petition handed into thd business department and I w`s with

:55:33. > :55:40.her on the day, as were a ntmber of honourable friends. A petithon of

:55:41. > :55:45.300,000 names. And rightly, they said, what on Earth are we doing

:55:46. > :55:51.here just two years after the last attempt? And the very clear

:55:52. > :55:52.widespread opposition to privatisation was demonstrated on

:55:53. > :55:58.that occasion. Very happy to give way. I al very

:55:59. > :56:05.grateful to him for giving way. Does he agree with me that when lany of

:56:06. > :56:09.us turned up with the huge petition, a whole range of different

:56:10. > :56:12.organisations as well as thd PCS and other unions, it might have been

:56:13. > :56:18.really helpful for the Minister to meet some of the people who were

:56:19. > :56:25.there wishing to hand over the petition? The Minister from a

:56:26. > :56:30.sedentary position points ott it is not him! Maybe we can take that as

:56:31. > :56:34.him agreeing the Minister responsible should have been there

:56:35. > :56:40.on that day. He can choose whether to respond that when he replies to

:56:41. > :56:43.the debate shortly. The honourable member for Telford makes an

:56:44. > :56:50.important point about the ilportance to her constituents, the success of

:56:51. > :56:56.her constituency, the importance that the registry has played in that

:56:57. > :56:59.success. And that is true for each and every one of us and every

:57:00. > :57:08.constituency up and down thd country. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Land

:57:09. > :57:13.Registry has existed for 150 years. Currently, it does not cost the

:57:14. > :57:16.taxpayers a penny. It makes a significant profit and has delivered

:57:17. > :57:24.a surplus in 90 of the last 20 years. A one-off sell-off is no

:57:25. > :57:31.strategy for deficit reducthon, as members opposite have acknowledged.

:57:32. > :57:38.But it goes allow a one-off reduction in debt only. It hs not an

:57:39. > :57:43.economic recovery and appro`ch to be taking, to be looking at with

:57:44. > :57:50.government finances in this way Worse, it is cynical to pretend the

:57:51. > :57:55.taxpayers that it constitutds responsible management of the

:57:56. > :57:59.economy. I am afraid that this driven by the Treasury and the

:58:00. > :58:03.Chancellor is exactly what the government appears to be trxing to

:58:04. > :58:10.do. The consequences of selling off the Land Registry far wider and more

:58:11. > :58:14.dangerous than losing a profitable public sector enterprise. H`ving a

:58:15. > :58:23.trusted impartial register of land underpins our economy. I do not need

:58:24. > :58:29.to repeat the members here `bout the uncertainty and danger that has been

:58:30. > :58:34.caused by the Brexit decision taken a week ago. That uncertaintx we have

:58:35. > :58:38.already seen in markets and it is spreading to the real econoly

:58:39. > :58:44.already and we have already seen job losses announced. And that `pplies

:58:45. > :58:50.right across our economy and it applies in the role that thd Land

:58:51. > :58:56.Registry plays. Any House you, your family or your company owns, any

:58:57. > :59:02.shares that you buy or sell relies upon the Land Registry grunting and

:59:03. > :59:07.transferring title deeds. -, grunting. It is the only proof of

:59:08. > :59:14.title ownership recognised by law. The ?3 trillion worth of UK

:59:15. > :59:17.property, every sale purchase, repossession and mortgage in the UK

:59:18. > :59:23.is carried out transparentlx and in confidence by the seller, the buyer

:59:24. > :59:27.and the lender. The Land Registry's independence is fundamental to the

:59:28. > :59:32.trust homeowners and mortgage lenders and solicitors placd in it.

:59:33. > :59:36.How could this trust remain in the very basis of that trust, the

:59:37. > :59:44.knowledge that it is utterlx impartial, is removed? And how could

:59:45. > :59:49.the government maintain that it will still have its impartiality if it is

:59:50. > :59:53.taken over by private interdsts And just look at the potential buyers

:59:54. > :59:57.showing an interest. Of the private investment firms reported l`st month

:59:58. > :00:01.by the Times to be interestdd in running the Land Registry, `ll of

:00:02. > :00:06.them have links to offshore tax havens. It makes a mockery of claims

:00:07. > :00:12.by the government to be serhous about clamping down on tax `voidance

:00:13. > :00:22.and tax evasion. Canadian pdnsion companies are, American private

:00:23. > :00:28.equity firms and General Atlantic each have links to jurisdictions,

:00:29. > :00:34.not least in the Cayman Isl`nds So when the Minister responds, can he

:00:35. > :00:37.tell us if he agrees that it is the Land Registry's absolute

:00:38. > :00:40.transparency and independence from private interest, is that

:00:41. > :00:44.fundamental for the trust placed in fundamental for the trust placed in

:00:45. > :00:48.it by homeowners and mortgage lenders, and see also agreed that

:00:49. > :00:54.this trust be fundamentally undermined if such firms took over?

:00:55. > :00:59.Because that is the reality in what people and down the country can see

:01:00. > :01:02.happening. Would my arm ball friend give way on that point?

:01:03. > :01:08.Yes. Can I thank my honourable friend for giving way? -- honourable

:01:09. > :01:13.friend. The companies he has cited as potential owners, they are all

:01:14. > :01:16.foreign-based so apart from being tax dodgers, does he share ly

:01:17. > :01:21.concern that something so fundamental to the UK would again

:01:22. > :01:26.exist in foreign hands? He's quite right and of course, we havd seen a

:01:27. > :01:31.steady direction of travel of foreign ownership of British

:01:32. > :01:35.interests for a great many xears. It is surprising we have anythhng of

:01:36. > :01:38.any substance left in this country that is not foreign owned, the way

:01:39. > :01:43.that this Government proceeds. I think he has put his finger on a

:01:44. > :01:49.very important part of the debate, and another good reason why this

:01:50. > :01:52.should be turned down. One of my honourable friends mentioned the

:01:53. > :01:58.timing, and think it was thd honourable lady from Swanse` East.

:01:59. > :02:02.-- I think. The way governmdnt times its announcements is normally an

:02:03. > :02:06.indication of how conscious they are a one then eyes. Relaxing Stnday

:02:07. > :02:12.trading laws was an example of this, where they slipped out an unpopular

:02:13. > :02:19.policy at the last possible moment -- thin ice. After the legislation

:02:20. > :02:22.had gone through the Lords, where the legislation started lifd. As my

:02:23. > :02:26.honourable friend has just reminded me, it did not do them very much

:02:27. > :02:31.good on that occasion, I suspect having heard the did they today it

:02:32. > :02:36.will not do them much good this time either. Because this time, they

:02:37. > :02:40.chose to release the propos`l because the new of the last day of

:02:41. > :02:47.Parliament before the Easter recess. If you were cynical, you might think

:02:48. > :02:59.it was done deliberately to avoid attention. -- on the last d`y. But

:03:00. > :03:03.of course, you are not cynical! The proposal does not want it, ht will

:03:04. > :03:07.not stand up to scrutiny. This is not the first time they havd tried

:03:08. > :03:10.to railroad Land Registry privatisation through and the public

:03:11. > :03:16.response last time could not have been more overwhelmingly negative.

:03:17. > :03:26.91% in 2014 said privatisathon will not provide more efficient services.

:03:27. > :03:31.Just 5% but it would do. More recent polling, not that we should

:03:32. > :03:36.necessarily believe what we see in the polls, more recent pollhng has

:03:37. > :03:42.delivered the same message. Without opposition outstripping support by

:03:43. > :03:46.more than 4-1 amongst the ptblic. The 300,000 people who signdd the

:03:47. > :03:51.online petition had their n`mes added to this just the other week.

:03:52. > :03:56.They and many others besides are against the privatisation and they

:03:57. > :04:00.made that clear within a month of the consultation opening. If the

:04:01. > :04:07.government thinks it can mask and economically incoherent proposal

:04:08. > :04:11.with a public sector bad, private sector good mantra, nobody hs going

:04:12. > :04:22.to be full. Does the governlent honestly think a private opdrator

:04:23. > :04:27.would create a more operabld body? It is generating ?100 million plus

:04:28. > :04:31.every year to the Treasury so it simply does not stack up as an

:04:32. > :04:35.argument. And the New Econolic Foundation has pointed out that

:04:36. > :04:39.state assets, not just the Land Registry, ordnance survey and

:04:40. > :04:43.Channel 4, they are all exalples of publicly owned services delhvering

:04:44. > :04:47.lean, efficient, profitable business models. If they got it has `ny

:04:48. > :04:54.interests in long-term growth and stability, it should hold onto those

:04:55. > :04:57.assets are not sell them off. Both because annual revenue is the

:04:58. > :05:01.economic responsible approach and it is the more stable approach at this

:05:02. > :05:06.time of great economic uncertainty on which the economy and business

:05:07. > :05:11.both depend. So does the government honestly believe a private operator

:05:12. > :05:16.would create a more efficient Land Registry? The Open Data Institute

:05:17. > :05:22.says that moving it out of public hands would build barriers hn our

:05:23. > :05:25.data infrastructure, reducing efficiency in the Land Registry and

:05:26. > :05:31.across government departments and other public services, with clear

:05:32. > :05:35.consequences for public confidence. Does the government honestlx believe

:05:36. > :05:39.that private operators would support a more transparent Land Reghstry?

:05:40. > :05:42.Because the privatised, it would cease being subject to the Freedom

:05:43. > :05:45.of information act. It begg`rs belief that the government can

:05:46. > :05:50.seriously suggest that in the wake of the Panama Papers releasd, it

:05:51. > :05:54.would be reasonable for the government to pursue policids which

:05:55. > :06:01.make it easier to conceal l`nd ownership for non-doms. If the

:06:02. > :06:06.privatisation happens, the Land Registry will go to private

:06:07. > :06:11.interests, which will not bd subject to checks and balances, likd Freedom

:06:12. > :06:15.of information, that any relaining public sector body is subject to.

:06:16. > :06:22.And not just any private interests, but judging on the interestdd

:06:23. > :06:25.parties so far, as my honourable friend said, private interests

:06:26. > :06:30.already tied up overseas, not just overseas, but with tax havens.

:06:31. > :06:34.Dealing with trillions of pounds property underpinning the housing

:06:35. > :06:39.sector, this can only be downright dangerous.

:06:40. > :06:45.Mr Deputy Speaker privatisation would deny homeowners, mortgage

:06:46. > :06:52.lenders, and buyers an independent national register of title deeds. It

:06:53. > :06:55.would be destabilising. The consultation said Howell, not

:06:56. > :07:02.whether privatisation would go ahead. The Land Registry cotld be

:07:03. > :07:06.given the ability to continte to innovate, to continue to deliver

:07:07. > :07:11.savings and revenue to the government. It is already a success,

:07:12. > :07:17.so why isn't the consultation looking at the option of encouraging

:07:18. > :07:22.improvements and development of further success for our public

:07:23. > :07:27.sector? Both to improve service and to generate further revenue, if that

:07:28. > :07:37.is what is driving the government's behaviour. The Minister, thd

:07:38. > :07:42.honourable lady for Brock stared as told constituents as I understand

:07:43. > :07:48.that this is a ridiculous idea driven by Treasury capital receipts.

:07:49. > :07:52.I agree with her, and Labour will find this privatisation, and I hope

:07:53. > :07:58.the government will once ag`in performed a U-turn in the f`ce of

:07:59. > :08:04.the widespread pressure frol professionals and public alhke.

:08:05. > :08:07.Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker will stop could I start by congr`tulating

:08:08. > :08:12.the backbench business commhttee on bringing this debate will stop I

:08:13. > :08:15.didn't get here by rebelling against the government often and I'l very

:08:16. > :08:19.proud that the one of the e`rly rebelling support the backbdnch

:08:20. > :08:22.business community. It has done us a service by ringing the debate here

:08:23. > :08:28.to this house, and we have had strong views across all parties I

:08:29. > :08:34.think, with the exception pdrhaps of Ukip and the Liberal Democr`ts, but

:08:35. > :08:36.perhaps all the other party. Can I congratulate the honourable member

:08:37. > :08:41.for Tottenham full preview debate and the motion to the house? Let me

:08:42. > :08:45.start in the time I have av`ilable Mr Deputy Speaker to say solething

:08:46. > :08:53.about the Land Registry, wh`t it does, and why it is such an

:08:54. > :08:57.important office of this cotntry. Something about the issues have been

:08:58. > :09:00.touched on on why it is right that the government reviews and looks at

:09:01. > :09:06.the right places for investlent and leadership in different parts of the

:09:07. > :09:09.function that we provide, in India with some issues that have been

:09:10. > :09:15.raised by honourable members, and confirm the government's position.

:09:16. > :09:19.The Land Registry, as colle`gues across all sides of the house has

:09:20. > :09:25.highlighted, underpins a very very important role of the state in

:09:26. > :09:29.keeping a safe, reliable, independent register of land

:09:30. > :09:32.ownership, which is, I think everybody that has spoken h`s

:09:33. > :09:38.acknowledged, goes right to the heart of property owning and

:09:39. > :09:40.democracy, the of property `nd the democratic right of society do

:09:41. > :09:47.enforce those rights, they `re hard-won right, and much je`lously

:09:48. > :09:50.guarded around the world, and not taken for granted, and that is why

:09:51. > :10:01.this debate is so important. The Land Registry deals with ovdr ?

:10:02. > :10:06.trillion's worth of assets ?1 trillion worth of mortgages hinged

:10:07. > :10:14.on and depend on clarity in that ownership. Its 4500 staff who I want

:10:15. > :10:19.to pay tribute to Dave carrx out an important for a society, le`ding and

:10:20. > :10:24.the management. It accounts for ?205 million worth of income last year.

:10:25. > :10:31.It incurs slightly less that in costs, and paid a ?40 million

:10:32. > :10:38.dividend for the vestry, turning over, washing its face, and giving a

:10:39. > :10:42.small surplus of profit each year. It is dealing with a number of

:10:43. > :10:44.issues including visualisathon and increasing efficiency, incltding the

:10:45. > :10:49.much lamented map search and property alert about, so it is an

:10:50. > :10:55.organisation that carries ott some vital and important roles at the

:10:56. > :10:58.heart of our system. Colleagues particularly on the opposithon

:10:59. > :11:03.benches, and elsewhere, havd talked about privatisation. It is worth Mr

:11:04. > :11:07.Deputy Speaker reminding thd house why successive government in the

:11:08. > :11:11.past have embraced a progralme of privatisation and the rationale for

:11:12. > :11:16.so doing. His rationale is, and I stand as a proud member of ` party

:11:17. > :11:17.which achieved much in that programme in previous decadds,

:11:18. > :11:22.privatisation, Mr Deputy Spdaker, you will not need me to remhnd you,

:11:23. > :11:28.was driven by a need to introduce competition and choice in kdy

:11:29. > :11:32.services on the half of the consumers and users and taxpayers.

:11:33. > :11:35.Additional investment into key services at a time when previous

:11:36. > :11:38.government was able to make that investment, to invest in new

:11:39. > :11:44.management in key areas of our society and economy that were

:11:45. > :11:47.failing before, organisations by British Leyland British Teldcom and

:11:48. > :11:50.I can go through the rest of the left in a moment. The take off the

:11:51. > :11:54.government balance sheet chronic liability that it was unabld to eat

:11:55. > :12:01.and deal with, of course, this was one of the original rationale for

:12:02. > :12:05.the transfer of council houses from estate unable to properly m`intain

:12:06. > :12:11.them to the citizens who thdn showed how to maintain hand have bden very

:12:12. > :12:18.grateful to us in following that. We led a housing revolution in booming

:12:19. > :12:23.in public housing, not perh`ps enough of a boom, but nonetheless,

:12:24. > :12:27.the reason that reform is c`rried out was to deal with a serious

:12:28. > :12:31.liability to transferring m`jor assets come in that case, council

:12:32. > :12:35.housing, into the hands of the people paying for it with their

:12:36. > :12:38.taxes, and indeed to increase tax revenues for the government. Many

:12:39. > :12:41.people probably on the opposition members as well, I need to crack on,

:12:42. > :12:45.I'm sorry... They would probably admit that they will be str`nge to

:12:46. > :12:54.have a society... I will take this on. In a minute. Oh, I've got lots

:12:55. > :12:58.to say! Very few people on the opposition benches, I will finish if

:12:59. > :13:00.I make and then I will take the intervention, will be today calling

:13:01. > :13:03.for British Aerospace, Brithsh terror conqueror of British gas

:13:04. > :13:07.British Petroleum, he return of British Leyland, which is wdlcome

:13:08. > :13:12.British Steel, British dairhes. . We have achieved much in recent

:13:13. > :13:14.decades, ends in setting out argument for privatisation than I

:13:15. > :13:18.need to remind the house whhle they were at the time and we will come to

:13:19. > :13:23.it in a minute to decide whdther Lowry appropriate in this issue Is

:13:24. > :13:27.a fascinating history of privatisation, I thank him for it.

:13:28. > :13:32.Can he explain why when all those things were being privatised by

:13:33. > :13:38.rabid privatisers on the benches opposite, they didn't go anxwhere

:13:39. > :13:43.near the relevant registry? -- Land Registry? It may well be for reasons

:13:44. > :13:48.I was just setting out, that is why I was doing so, sectors such as

:13:49. > :13:56.aerospace, no gas, telecoms, electricity, and perhaps evdn the

:13:57. > :13:58.car industry, are similar to British Leyland 's... I'm trying to remind

:13:59. > :14:03.the house that there was a reason for those privatisations, rdasons

:14:04. > :14:06.for opposition and choice, investment management, and the

:14:07. > :14:11.reduction of liabilities on the public balance sheet. What would be

:14:12. > :14:17.the rationale here where thd government to take this forward

:14:18. > :14:20.Well, the rationale would bd, and I will confirm any moment, thd and has

:14:21. > :14:23.absolutely no plans for this, we have simply carried out a

:14:24. > :14:26.consultation and are in the process of hearing loud and clear what being

:14:27. > :14:30.said will stop the rationald for those watching for the galldry is

:14:31. > :14:35.wondering why this is even being considered, rationale would be to

:14:36. > :14:38.create a basis on the Land Registry if needed could raise subst`ntial

:14:39. > :14:42.extra investment that the government... I will give w`y in a

:14:43. > :14:46.moment. ... Of the day could not. It could be for getting a substantial

:14:47. > :14:49.injection of new leadership in order to help the Land Registry to deal

:14:50. > :14:54.with the opportunities of globalisation around the world newly

:14:55. > :15:00.liberated economy economies starting to look to copy the UK model in so

:15:01. > :15:05.many areas, and this could be one. And yes, it could be a mech`nism for

:15:06. > :15:11.looking at how we tackle a still ongoing and chronic debt crhsis and

:15:12. > :15:15.deficit rises which will saddle the next generation of this country with

:15:16. > :15:18.debts. These are the reasons that the government would look, `s we

:15:19. > :15:22.look out over time, at the public balance sheet, at whether an

:15:23. > :15:28.institution such as this might be one worth considering looking at. I

:15:29. > :15:33.will happily give way. I'm grateful to him. He was saying, giving

:15:34. > :15:36.reasons for perhaps looking at privatisation, if he does not have a

:15:37. > :15:43.view on it, why was the consultation framed the way it was? How do you

:15:44. > :15:46.privatise, rather than whether you privatise? Than not suggest a

:15:47. > :15:52.fundamental commitment to the privatisation? Well, I suggdst the

:15:53. > :15:56.best indication of our commhtment or not would be what I am saying in the

:15:57. > :16:01.box right now, and of coursd I will say something in a moment about

:16:02. > :16:05.events going on outside this chamber, which will of course go on

:16:06. > :16:09.to determine how, ultimatelx, this is taken forward, but the point I

:16:10. > :16:16.was making is that the government has had a consultation. I think it

:16:17. > :16:20.is absolutely right that we, as a responsible government, do keep

:16:21. > :16:25.under review the questions `bout whether and how we have, we can take

:16:26. > :16:29.those functions that are currently the monopoly response ability of the

:16:30. > :16:32.state, and see whether they could be financed better, whether thdy could

:16:33. > :16:39.be liberated, and thrive better under new freedoms, and to see

:16:40. > :16:45.whether, indeed,... I will happily give way in a moment. ... If we did

:16:46. > :16:49.in so doing put public finances on a stronger footing. I merely seek to

:16:50. > :16:53.set out the basis of a rationale on which those issues have been

:16:54. > :16:57.addressed earlier, and to confirm again, that the government has no

:16:58. > :17:00.plans will. This is merely ` consultation, and we have rdceived

:17:01. > :17:04.no bids, no decision has bedn made, and I will say a bit more about that

:17:05. > :17:09.in a moment, about the issuds that we would consider going forward if

:17:10. > :17:12.I will take this net inventhon to now. -- I will take this

:17:13. > :17:15.intervention. When you say the government has no plans, is he in

:17:16. > :17:21.fact pronouncing on the consultation, because he has heard

:17:22. > :17:27.the house this afternoon, no one has come forward in the house in favour

:17:28. > :17:31.of this, and obviously one hs reflecting very carefully on whether

:17:32. > :17:35.we ought to deceive the strdngth of feeling, and put this to a vote It

:17:36. > :17:40.is very important to understand what in fact he is saying this afternoon

:17:41. > :17:46.because the real concern is that this is a treasure concern, and that

:17:47. > :17:49.was one of his points that he raids, and if that is the case, thdn it

:17:50. > :17:52.probably is right that the House of Commons demonstrates to the Treasury

:17:53. > :17:56.that they probably would not get this through. The honourabld

:17:57. > :18:00.gentleman is a canny Parlialentary operator and let me just continue my

:18:01. > :18:03.speech and deal with the various points that have been raised,

:18:04. > :18:07.because in so doing I will give him some reassurance that the mhnister

:18:08. > :18:10.is listening, and he has he`rd loud and clear what has been set. I will

:18:11. > :18:15.happily give way. I'm grateful for giving way. I'm confused here, if

:18:16. > :18:18.the government has no plans at all to privatise the Land Registry, why

:18:19. > :18:25.on earth do we have the consultation in the first place? I am gohng to go

:18:26. > :18:28.on to claim that point exactly. They may have escaped the honour`ble

:18:29. > :18:32.gentleman's notice for the purpose of this debate that this government

:18:33. > :18:36.and its predecessor, the Co`lition Government has had to confront a

:18:37. > :18:43.crisis in our public financds, a very serious crisis, about half of

:18:44. > :18:46.it all, and in Baja particularly -- on behalf particularly of the young

:18:47. > :18:51.of this country, whose death these aren't, who didn't make these

:18:52. > :18:55.decisions and nor were responsible for repairing these debts, but are

:18:56. > :19:00.now mired in debt, and that creates a situation in which any response

:19:01. > :19:03.will government, and if the benches opposite world wants to forl a new

:19:04. > :19:07.government, they will have to deal with this, it is at the heart of

:19:08. > :19:10.confronting any serious candidate for government. I think it hs right

:19:11. > :19:14.however in that situation is as a Business Minister in this government

:19:15. > :19:17.I would not be doing my job properly if I did not look constantlx,

:19:18. > :19:21.keeping under review the functions that we are currently carryhng out

:19:22. > :19:25.within government, and ask ourselves if we were put on a level footing

:19:26. > :19:29.whether the weighted raise the investment we need off the public

:19:30. > :19:34.balance sheet, attract a stronger and better management, Whitdhall is

:19:35. > :19:37.not after all the best alwaxs made of managing the function in the

:19:38. > :19:42.state, and indeed be creative about whether we might generate more

:19:43. > :19:47.revenue in order to support high quality services for the UK

:19:48. > :19:49.customers and citizens and taxpayers. I do not think a modern

:19:50. > :19:53.government good be doing its job if he did not ask that question but the

:19:54. > :19:57.government also has two... H will perhaps deal with the issues raised

:19:58. > :20:00.here. The government also h`s two consider the issues raised by

:20:01. > :20:09.parliamentarians, the issues that any such move might raise in terms

:20:10. > :20:11.of the permanence of them, `nd taken into account and that is wh`t we are

:20:12. > :20:14.doing right now, considering the responses to the consultation, and

:20:15. > :20:21.the submissions that have bden made today in this debate, which is why I

:20:22. > :20:24.thank the long noble gentlelan - honourable gentleman raised, and the

:20:25. > :20:28.honourable gentleman for Tottenham raised some important concerns, the

:20:29. > :20:31.level of public concern firstly and questions about the motive for

:20:32. > :20:38.having a conversation, I hope I have dealt with that. There is no

:20:39. > :20:40.legitimate motive, that is this is an appropriate thing for thd

:20:41. > :20:44.government to do, to ask about to look at. He made the point `bout

:20:45. > :20:49.transparency. This register sits right at the heart of our ddmocracy

:20:50. > :20:54.because it is a register of land ownership and it is important that

:20:55. > :20:56.that is transparent, and it is interrogated bull, and that people

:20:57. > :21:02.can see it is. He raised issues around the need to make surd that

:21:03. > :21:07.the operating costs are reinvested to allow the operation to grow and

:21:08. > :21:14.develop and I thank the gentleman from Hull who was very amushng in

:21:15. > :21:18.his summary of the quinquennial reviews waking each governmdnt. My

:21:19. > :21:22.point is he raised a compelling case, my point is that therd is a

:21:23. > :21:26.compelling case, whether it is compelling enough is remainhng to be

:21:27. > :21:30.considered along the other points that have been made. The honourable

:21:31. > :21:34.member for Harwich made an interesting interpretation, someone

:21:35. > :21:39.who would normally expect to be on the barricades for, as he hhmself

:21:40. > :21:43.wanted out, on the barricadds for more privatisation, he was ` great

:21:44. > :21:48.champion of it in decades p`st. This is a critical issue, go to the heart

:21:49. > :21:53.of the society, our ability to keep track of our land rights, an issue

:21:54. > :21:56.of integrity, stability, and the importance of open data.

:21:57. > :22:06.Transparency also. Any say Deputy Speaker that I make choices on this

:22:07. > :22:10.regards using health data for example, to modern the NHS, to

:22:11. > :22:16.attract new investment, to lake the NHS in the UK world leader hn

:22:17. > :22:19.investing in new medicines, we are absolutely clear that one of the

:22:20. > :22:22.things we will not do in th`t is still any of the state or private

:22:23. > :22:26.data, as we are building databases in which the industry can work on

:22:27. > :22:30.us, interrogating the conditions that we provide. We are seeking to

:22:31. > :22:33.take royalty, writes from commercial organisations in order to ptt that

:22:34. > :22:37.money back into most organisations dedicated to preventing mondy back

:22:38. > :22:49.into public services. We want data to be used to provide

:22:50. > :22:52.greater research and innovation The honourable member for Harwich cannot

:22:53. > :22:56.be here and he did apologisd, you had to be someone else. The

:22:57. > :23:00.honourable member for Carlisle, a solicitor himself who has used the

:23:01. > :23:03.Land Registry and relied upon it, was powerful when he referrdd to

:23:04. > :23:10.this as a privatisation too far The honourable member for Colchdster,

:23:11. > :23:16.who has been a property lawxer. Once a property lawyer, always a property

:23:17. > :23:19.lawyer! He has echoed these concerns, referring to it as

:23:20. > :23:23.potentially anti-competitivd and he would have concerns on thosd

:23:24. > :23:27.grounds. The honourable member for Dorset who raised a chuckle when he

:23:28. > :23:32.referred to his belief everx Ingason's home is his castld and

:23:33. > :23:39.referred to this as being the cause I traditional -- English manner

:23:40. > :23:42.Which may be the name of thd new Chancellor in the next

:23:43. > :23:46.administration! He said this was a question of the government having

:23:47. > :23:52.bigger fish to fry. He is rhght that any government formed to de`l with

:23:53. > :23:57.the scale of this ongoing crisis affecting this economy and others

:23:58. > :24:01.across Western Europe, dealhng with ageing societies, the need to reform

:24:02. > :24:06.and update our modern public services, the need to get rhd of

:24:07. > :24:12.deficits and pay off the debt, we have very substantial issues to deal

:24:13. > :24:15.with and this is one small part of looking at how to refresh and

:24:16. > :24:19.modernise our approach to 21st-century goblet. Member for

:24:20. > :24:22.Thirsk and Malta made a powdrful point about this debate being

:24:23. > :24:29.something of a symptom of ndw politics that is molten. He

:24:30. > :24:33.mentioned our late and respdcted colleague Jo Cox who I suspdct would

:24:34. > :24:38.be speaking in this debate where she here today, with her much rdspected

:24:39. > :24:42.blend of passion and local responsibility, and spoken for her

:24:43. > :24:49.constituents. My friend madd the bike that if any reforms were to be

:24:50. > :24:57.put in place -- made the pohnt that. Which is why Erik Pieters to the

:24:58. > :24:59.early -- which is why I repdated that they were never about creating

:25:00. > :25:04.monopolies but tries and competition, where they would be

:25:05. > :25:11.advantageous for the consumdrs and users of the service. And mx

:25:12. > :25:15.honourable member for Telford endorsed those points. I am

:25:16. > :25:21.conscious that the House's time is precious. I would love to stand at

:25:22. > :25:25.this dispatch box all afternoon and talk about embracing more

:25:26. > :25:29.interesting and innovative lodels for delivering private and public

:25:30. > :25:34.sector innovation, but I am conscious colleagues are distracted

:25:35. > :25:39.by events beyond this chambdr. Could I, in closing, Mr Deputy Spdaker,

:25:40. > :25:44.take this opportunity... I can assure you that whoever it ht is not

:25:45. > :25:48.behind me! Can I take this opportunity, in more ways than one!

:25:49. > :25:51.Can I take this opportunity to confirm the government has lerely

:25:52. > :25:56.consulted in the last weeks and months on this question and to

:25:57. > :25:59.confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, no decision has taken -- has been

:26:00. > :26:04.taken and ministers will listen carefully to the views exprdssed.

:26:05. > :26:08.Can I also just say that I think we do as a government have a vdry

:26:09. > :26:11.serious responsibility to m`ke sure that we are constantly keephng under

:26:12. > :26:17.review the arrangements that we have in place for the delivery of

:26:18. > :26:20.services such as these and two, as my honourable friend said, we were

:26:21. > :26:24.elected on a mandate to bal`nce the books. That requires careful

:26:25. > :26:31.judgments about the timing `nd the way in which we do it. And `s a

:26:32. > :26:35.Minister without Portfolio `ll about driving a different model of

:26:36. > :26:39.innovation between private `nd pub like working together, ending the

:26:40. > :26:44.apartheid of private productive and public not, it is not appropriate or

:26:45. > :26:48.sensible for a 21st-century government is -- public. We need to

:26:49. > :26:52.find ways of working togethdr. It is right we constantly look at these

:26:53. > :26:56.and colleagues have touched on a range of different models. Where one

:26:57. > :27:01.to look at taking forward a way to put the Land Registry on a footing

:27:02. > :27:06.that allows it to invest faster develop new services and le`dership

:27:07. > :27:10.and tap into global markets. There are a range of different models one

:27:11. > :27:13.might look at, including neutralisation and including a range

:27:14. > :27:18.of new structures being devdloped. I would just say this in closhng. We

:27:19. > :27:26.have heard the concerns expressed in this House loudly -- loud and clear.

:27:27. > :27:29.Others elsewhere, in those other rooms are referred to, will

:27:30. > :27:35.determine in due course what the government later this year will

:27:36. > :27:41.decide to do in this case. H would just point out, I am aware, as we

:27:42. > :27:46.are painfully on the side, the majority is 12 and does not require

:27:47. > :27:52.many to take a different vidw to assess the likelihood of getting a

:27:53. > :27:56.measure through. I have no hdea what those currently looking to form the

:27:57. > :27:59.new Administration will want to do when they are in office, but I think

:28:00. > :28:04.anybody reading this debate today would see loud and clear thd few of

:28:05. > :28:08.those who have spoken today on all sides of the House and that if

:28:09. > :28:12.anything is to be done to look at the future of the Land Registry it

:28:13. > :28:16.will need to be very, very clearly focused around solving parthcular

:28:17. > :28:21.problems that are there tod`y and dealing with issues, specifhc issues

:28:22. > :28:26.that need to be addressed. H think it was one of the members on the

:28:27. > :28:30.opposition benches he said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The

:28:31. > :28:34.member for Kingston called on clarity on what the case wotld be

:28:35. > :28:38.and I hear him loud and cle`r. We would need to set out very clearly

:28:39. > :28:42.what the problem we are tryhng to solve this in order to take it

:28:43. > :28:45.forward. I hope I have addrdssed the points that have been raised and I

:28:46. > :28:51.once again thank the honour`ble member for bringing this debate

:28:52. > :28:56.Well, Mr Speaker, the strength of feeling in the House has bedn

:28:57. > :28:58.conveyed this afternoon. Right across the House, there is

:28:59. > :29:05.opposition to the privatisation of the Land Registry. The Minister I

:29:06. > :29:10.think we can describe as ond of the government's more eloquent junior

:29:11. > :29:14.ministers. I think in his own speech he acknowledged he was making a case

:29:15. > :29:19.for looking at it, but he clearly had not made a compelling c`se for

:29:20. > :29:24.privatising it. He used phr`ses like listening very carefully to the

:29:25. > :29:30.House, like merely looking `t it. And on that basis, I think that

:29:31. > :29:34.those who look at the debatd in Hansard reflect on what he has said

:29:35. > :29:39.and what he has not been able to say in any convincing form might

:29:40. > :29:44.conclude that it is unlikelx that the government will move forward in

:29:45. > :29:48.this way. Certainly with thd majority it has, it is clear that

:29:49. > :29:51.the goblet would not command the strength of this House and H hope

:29:52. > :29:56.that this debate give some comfort to those deep very concerned and our

:29:57. > :30:00.country and certainly those who work for this great, great institution.

:30:01. > :30:05.And with that, we perhaps c`n move onto the next debate.

:30:06. > :30:11.Very grateful. The question is, as on the order

:30:12. > :30:17.paper,... As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

:30:18. > :30:27."no." I think the ayes just got it. The ayes have it. We now re`ch a

:30:28. > :30:32.debate on bank branch closures and I called Christian Matheson to move.

:30:33. > :30:37.Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker and I beg to move the motion on the order

:30:38. > :30:42.paper standing in my name and the names of the Honourable Members for

:30:43. > :30:47.whom this has been very much a joint effort and to whom I pay trhbute. I

:30:48. > :30:51.would like to thank the back pension Business Committee for the

:30:52. > :30:55.opportunity to bring this motion and this debate to the House today. When

:30:56. > :31:01.the three of us up Roache to the backbench Business Committed, the

:31:02. > :31:04.members of that the date of the local elections as a possible

:31:05. > :31:11.occasion -- approached. Knowing there was wide support for the

:31:12. > :31:14.debate and not wanting it to get swamped by external events, we

:31:15. > :31:21.declined and we did ask for a later date. That worked out well, didn't

:31:22. > :31:26.it? Not! In my pocket, I have a smartphone and I have an

:31:27. > :31:31.application, I should explahn that the senior members, in which I can

:31:32. > :31:35.access my banking services `nd pay my bills and check my Allens,

:31:36. > :31:40.transfer money between accotnts not of which I haste and to add located

:31:41. > :31:46.offshore. And probably even apply for a loan. Ranking is changing and

:31:47. > :31:51.in many ways for the more convenient and maybe for the better. Btt

:31:52. > :31:55.convenience does not always rely solely on possession of a

:31:56. > :32:00.smartphone. The physical prdsence of a bank is still important, so today

:32:01. > :32:08.I will not call for a halt to all technological advances in b`nking, I

:32:09. > :32:12.do not want to access money I - in a check and using the credit card

:32:13. > :32:18.devices a shopkeeper had to fill in by hand and run a mechanism to print

:32:19. > :32:23.the credit card on the carbon paper. I give way.

:32:24. > :32:28.I have a cheque-book and mobile phone and when I go to the bank do

:32:29. > :32:32.not have a choice when that bank is refusing to give me any services.

:32:33. > :32:36.The serious point is that m`ny places in my constituency do not

:32:37. > :32:39.have a mobile phone signal so they have greater limitations on the way

:32:40. > :32:45.they are able to provide services and access services.

:32:46. > :32:49.An extremely useful point and if I may, I may talk about some of the

:32:50. > :32:55.areas suffering more from these bank closures in a short while, hf he can

:32:56. > :33:00.bear with me? There has to be recognition, as my honourable friend

:33:01. > :33:05.just eluded to, that for many, the elderly and people with card and

:33:06. > :33:09.responsibilities and small business owners, programmes by High Street

:33:10. > :33:15.banks to close many smaller branches and centralise them creates havoc to

:33:16. > :33:18.individuals and businesses `nd damages local communities. Ly

:33:19. > :33:23.interest in this matter was prompted by a spate of branch closurds in the

:33:24. > :33:26.pool area of Chester. Last Summer, NatWest announced it was closing its

:33:27. > :33:35.branch and the excuse was the branch was underused yet I am my tdam took

:33:36. > :33:38.a survey of usage scientifically standing outside and counting people

:33:39. > :33:45.over several hours, flatly contradicting the claims by NatWest.

:33:46. > :33:52.HSBC had gone, followed by worries, leaving only clues as a so-called

:33:53. > :33:57.last branch in town, In two. Bank branches have been closed in Chester

:33:58. > :34:02.in other districts. All our banks are now in the centre of Chdster and

:34:03. > :34:07.this has several profound effects. First, it increases traffic into the

:34:08. > :34:11.city centre. We already havd a congested city built on the River

:34:12. > :34:14.Dee, but when the Romans fotnded it and it became a bustling market town

:34:15. > :34:19.in the Middle Ages, nobody thought to design it for the needs of

:34:20. > :34:23.21st-century car use in mind. Keeping satellite branches hs

:34:24. > :34:28.strangely good for the environment. And it supports local busindsses to

:34:29. > :34:31.have satellite branches. People drop in the shopping areas.

:34:32. > :34:36.I will give way. My honourable friend has hit on the point that

:34:37. > :34:41.small businesses take up a lot of time and they have to go down to

:34:42. > :34:46.another local town where perhaps the traffic is building up and that is

:34:47. > :34:48.one complaint I have, that hs what they will have to do when their bank

:34:49. > :34:53.closes. I thank my honourable friend for

:34:54. > :35:01.that intervention. I have to say I was about to make exactly the same

:35:02. > :35:04.point. It supports, people drop into shopping areas such as Hoold to go

:35:05. > :35:09.to the bank and that could lead to them going to another local shop.

:35:10. > :35:12.And Hoole was recently the winner of the outstanding award for the Great

:35:13. > :35:18.Britain high-street award and I thank the honourable member from

:35:19. > :35:23.Nuneaton and perhaps he would bank them for the fact Hoole won that

:35:24. > :35:27.award. It is very much part of the ecology of the High Street, take

:35:28. > :35:31.that away and you damage thd ecology and small businesses who rely on it

:35:32. > :35:37.for increasing customers as people go to the bank and one small shop. I

:35:38. > :35:40.rely on it also to provide dasy access to banks. All businesses as

:35:41. > :35:48.my honourable friend pointed out. They feel able to put on a, back in

:35:49. > :35:55.ten minutes, sign on their door as they go to the bank. I would not be

:35:56. > :35:58.able to put up a back in two hours +, if they were forced to go into

:35:59. > :36:05.the city centre in Chester or a large town. -- time. Time away from

:36:06. > :36:12.the shop is business time lost and for all the advantages of internet

:36:13. > :36:15.banking, and there are many, the truth is that for a small btsiness,

:36:16. > :36:19.you cannot pay money into your bank through a laptop computer. H cannot

:36:20. > :36:23.help but wonder that this is made worse because of the adverthsing

:36:24. > :36:25.these banks use. No wonder HSBC moved away from calling itsdlf the

:36:26. > :36:35.world's local bank. Lloyds bank still claim thex are by

:36:36. > :36:43.our side was they close the Hull bank will stop not so much by our

:36:44. > :36:49.side. Banks claim to be in support of small businesses yet loc`l

:36:50. > :36:54.branches closing make this ` crisis for them. This is a crisis. Reuters

:36:55. > :37:00.reported last week that 600 branches closed in 12 months, to Aprhl this

:37:01. > :37:04.year. And there is a social division in these closures. Reuters say that

:37:05. > :37:10.more than 90% of these clostres are in areas where the union hotsehold

:37:11. > :37:13.income is below the British average of ?27,600 according to an `nalysis

:37:14. > :37:17.of the office for national statistics data on average hncomes

:37:18. > :37:22.on locations where branches were closed. By comparison, five out of

:37:23. > :37:26.the eight branches opened bx these banks over the same period were in

:37:27. > :37:32.some of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in Britain, Chelsea,

:37:33. > :37:36.Canary Wharf, Marla Bohn, Clapham, all district in London. That's

:37:37. > :37:40.right! Despite the onward m`rch of technology, banks are still opening

:37:41. > :37:45.branches but in highly affltent areas. Reuters report cites concerns

:37:46. > :37:51.from campaigners then banks are cutting too fast in places where

:37:52. > :37:54.people are less able to fall back on digital services because of a lack

:37:55. > :38:00.of access, and I hear again words of my good friend the honourable member

:38:01. > :38:10.about different ways differdnt bankers is services might bd

:38:11. > :38:14.accessed. Other actors problems might be caused by finances

:38:15. > :38:20.themselves, by physical accdss, or by ability to use the Internet. They

:38:21. > :38:26.give a quick from Ffion Travers Smith of the group Move your money,

:38:27. > :38:30.campaign for ethical banking. She says that we are at risk of a dual

:38:31. > :38:34.financial system, one for the middle-class and wealthy, and one

:38:35. > :38:39.for the poor. Indeed, I havd found that one of the groups hit by local

:38:40. > :38:42.closures are pensioners, not necessarily, and I don't want to

:38:43. > :38:45.make assumptions, not necessarily the most tech savvy group, but they

:38:46. > :38:49.know how to make the journex into the centre of my city. I will

:38:50. > :38:52.certainly give way. I think the honourable member for giving weight

:38:53. > :38:56.was just on that point, I h`ve been dealing with a constituent case

:38:57. > :39:01.whereby a couple have been conned out of their life savings, some

:39:02. > :39:06.?50,000 with a sophisticated telephone and online scam whth my

:39:07. > :39:09.honourable friend agree that forcing people to adopt these services

:39:10. > :39:14.rather than giving them the option of over the counter services only

:39:15. > :39:18.serves to enable organised crime and scams question Mark I have to say,

:39:19. > :39:20.Mr Deputy Speaker, the thought had not occurred to me but that's

:39:21. > :39:24.dreadful case illustrates a problem we should all focus on. We would

:39:25. > :39:27.have a lot more confidence dealing with the bank when we are actually

:39:28. > :39:32.inside a physical bank dealhng with an individual, as opposed to one of

:39:33. > :39:36.the terrible phone scams, and I am grateful to the honourable lember

:39:37. > :39:40.for brain that awful case and awful problem to the attention of the

:39:41. > :39:46.house. -- bringing that awftl case to be essential. Thank you for

:39:47. > :39:50.giving way. The trend as he rightly says of bank branch closes hn areas

:39:51. > :39:55.of deprivation and greatest need are where one tends to see more branch

:39:56. > :40:06.closes than other areas. Given that that often is also linked whth a

:40:07. > :40:09.high access to high interest rates alternatives, does he not think we

:40:10. > :40:14.need to hear from the government about how they are intending to

:40:15. > :40:19.create more responsible fin`nce options in areas where bank branch

:40:20. > :40:23.closes are happening, such `s more support for credit unions, or more

:40:24. > :40:28.support for community banks, of which we have a number in the UK. My

:40:29. > :40:31.honourable friend has a long and proud and honourable historx working

:40:32. > :40:35.within the co-operative movdment as an expert on this area, and indeed

:40:36. > :40:39.if I may I may mention the roles of credit unions briefly, as I

:40:40. > :40:45.progressed through the speech. I wish to return to the probldms that

:40:46. > :40:51.particularly pensioners are having in accessing bank branches. For at

:40:52. > :40:58.the same time and I realise this is a necessary response abilitx of this

:40:59. > :41:04.-- this isn't necessarily a response ability of this particular linister,

:41:05. > :41:07.by forcing people into centre of town, we have privatised bus

:41:08. > :41:11.services cutting pensioners bus services so it is getting even

:41:12. > :41:16.harder for them to make the journey into the centre of town. It is also

:41:17. > :41:19.clear that most local and some local post offices have taken the sum of

:41:20. > :41:22.the demand, and honourable lembers in this house currently and

:41:23. > :41:26.previously have often fought long and hard against the closurd of

:41:27. > :41:32.local post offices. Their continued existence has therefore been aided

:41:33. > :41:38.by providing banking servicds, so I welcome the fact that there is a

:41:39. > :41:45.role for post offices in providing banking, but it is not a suhtable

:41:46. > :41:49.total replacement. I suspect other members that they will crithcise the

:41:50. > :41:53.banks for the way in which they take their closure programme, and I am

:41:54. > :41:56.critical of the seemingly h`sty and often desperate wait that closures

:41:57. > :42:01.are conducted solely on cost saving with no eye to service. But today I

:42:02. > :42:05.would like to be positive and propose a new solution which I do

:42:06. > :42:09.hope the Minister may give consideration to. I want to suggest

:42:10. > :42:13.high street banks come together where they are closing benches to

:42:14. > :42:19.form local banking Co-op 's in other words maintaining provision on local

:42:20. > :42:23.high streets as opposed to lajor town centre high streets, in shared

:42:24. > :42:29.premises, with shared costs. Perhaps this would have the automathc paying

:42:30. > :42:34.in of cash and cats would draw machines that we see in banks now,

:42:35. > :42:39.and perhaps rooms with phonds to contact call centres if reqtired,

:42:40. > :42:48.and with staff present to assist as perhaps the honourable leaddr lady

:42:49. > :42:52.from the SNP would be welcoling off as well. There are technicalities, I

:42:53. > :42:56.except that, who would employ the start for example? Who would own or

:42:57. > :42:59.lease the property is? Todax, I am only concerned with floating the

:43:00. > :43:04.printable, and it is not indeed my role to be prescriptive dat` banks

:43:05. > :43:07.about specific business moddl. There may however be various business

:43:08. > :43:14.model is good we tried and tested, and I wish to offer Chester as a

:43:15. > :43:18.test-bed for this movement. Perhaps credit unions might be involved as

:43:19. > :43:23.well. Very therefore throw down the gauntlet missed a deadly spdaker to

:43:24. > :43:27.the banks to take this proposal seriously, do come to Chestdr, or

:43:28. > :43:33.two wells, or Aberystwyth, `nd give it two years to see if it works It

:43:34. > :43:39.is a serious offer, and I whll help the banks make a success of it in my

:43:40. > :43:43.patch was either that, or they should stop using advertising that

:43:44. > :43:46.banks are suggested more hulan and accessible at the same time as

:43:47. > :43:52.closing local branches are laking accessibility harder. Banking is a

:43:53. > :43:55.private centre business, but it is also an essential service, ` bank is

:43:56. > :44:01.an essential part of the local high street ecosystem. There can be no

:44:02. > :44:04.more cavalier closures bank branches that internal damage local

:44:05. > :44:09.economies, bags are too important for that. In conclusion, Mr Deputy

:44:10. > :44:14.Speaker, in 2008, we apparently learned that some banks, sole big

:44:15. > :44:20.banks are too big to fail. That s the message today is that some local

:44:21. > :44:25.banks are two important to local communities to be allowed to close.

:44:26. > :44:29.The question is as on the order paper, and we now come to the next

:44:30. > :44:40.speaker. What I add my thanks to the honotrable

:44:41. > :44:44.gentle man from Chester, to the backbench committee forwardhng of

:44:45. > :44:47.this debate today but the pdople should not he is white in VB

:44:48. > :44:50.sparsity on these benches whth a lack of enthusiasm for this cause,

:44:51. > :44:54.many colleagues have told md in fact just how significant this is to

:44:55. > :44:58.their constituencies, and it is just a shame that on both sides of the

:44:59. > :45:05.house about abstractions at the moment. The issue of bank closes, Mr

:45:06. > :45:12.Deputy Speaker is gathering pace. There were 222 closes in 2003, and

:45:13. > :45:16.681 last year. Already, this year, there have been 333, and so it would

:45:17. > :45:23.appear that the pace is yet to quicken further. In my constituency

:45:24. > :45:27.my attention was drawn to this issue by the fact they are simply too many

:45:28. > :45:32.empty buildings on our high streets that were banks. Closures in Wells

:45:33. > :45:40.and Shepton Mallet and burn on Sea and elsewhere and most recently in

:45:41. > :45:43.Glastonbury, where I asked hn Prime Minister question Time months ago

:45:44. > :45:46.whether there was a chance of saving a least banks. All four of

:45:47. > :45:50.Glastonbury's banks went in one year. Three of them went within 14

:45:51. > :45:56.weeks. It is timely to be h`ving this debate today because in the

:45:57. > :45:59.week after there were 200,000 people in fields not too far outside

:46:00. > :46:06.Glastonbury, the idea that that s town does not have a single bank of

:46:07. > :46:11.the quite remarkable to you all -- must be quite remarkable to you all.

:46:12. > :46:15.The campaign in Glastonbury has been really formidable in the wax that

:46:16. > :46:18.they have fought their corndr. When Lloyds bank close, Mr Speakdr, you

:46:19. > :46:24.will be entertained to hear that they marked it by putting up a mock

:46:25. > :46:27.up of a black horse in a coffin feet up, and marching out to the

:46:28. > :46:34.town in a funeral procession for banking. I'm not sure whethdr Lloyds

:46:35. > :46:38.bank PR department was parthcularly infused by that. But the sad reality

:46:39. > :46:44.is that no hard the -- no m`tter how hard the campaign group works to

:46:45. > :46:50.save those banks, it was ultimately to no avail. NatWest saw thd

:46:51. > :46:55.opportunity to put a mobile occasional bank into the town, this

:46:56. > :47:02.being very welcome, but the reality it is that it is and may thdrefore a

:47:03. > :47:08.hour or two per week. Looking at a community bank we realise there are

:47:09. > :47:12.quite large herbals. Especi`lly when it is not just a credit union for

:47:13. > :47:15.the purposes of savings, it is a bang with functionality, so

:47:16. > :47:19.therefore ace extraordinary league difficult thing for a community to

:47:20. > :47:23.try and do. In my view, thotgh, it should not have happened. It should

:47:24. > :47:28.not have been possible for ` town the size of Glastonbury, and for an

:47:29. > :47:31.economy as vibrant as custolary s to lose all its banks, and it says to

:47:32. > :47:35.me that the access to banking protocols that were agreed hn the

:47:36. > :47:39.last months of the last govdrnment are simply not doing the job they

:47:40. > :47:44.were intended to do, and I will come back to that later on, if I may Mr

:47:45. > :47:47.Speaker. Now, one of the ch`llenges within the access to banking

:47:48. > :47:51.protocols is that these comlunity impact statements must be produced,

:47:52. > :47:56.and the reality is that within them, and again I will come back to this,

:47:57. > :48:01.the usage of banks is hotly contested, banks being one thing

:48:02. > :48:04.campaigners often disagree with Federation of Small Businesses but

:48:05. > :48:10.at a survey to the Glastonbtry area, to appeal to businesses using the

:48:11. > :48:16.banks in that area and 750 of them responded. This is a town of only

:48:17. > :48:21.10,000 people, but it does serve much wider hinterland. How

:48:22. > :48:26.extraordinary that 750 businesses should reply to a survey entitled

:48:27. > :48:30.Glastonbury bank closes. It tells you, Mr Speaker, just what `n

:48:31. > :48:35.important issue this is. So, too, the challenge of rurality, `nd the

:48:36. > :48:39.reality that there are transport links in areas like mind th`t do not

:48:40. > :48:43.allow people to travel freely from one town to the other to do banking

:48:44. > :48:47.when the bank on their high street is closed, and of course thd people

:48:48. > :48:52.that that disadvantages the very most are the most vulnerabld and the

:48:53. > :48:57.most isolated in our societx. One of the things that... I will of course

:48:58. > :49:02.give way to stop thank you for giving way an excellent point. And

:49:03. > :49:06.he does help the house. Givdn the iconic status of Glastonburx, and

:49:07. > :49:15.given the clear problems th`t existed to the -- prior to the

:49:16. > :49:18.closure of the last bank, dhd the honourable gentleman consults before

:49:19. > :49:25.the decision was made or was he presented by a fait accomplh? To be

:49:26. > :49:28.fair to the banks, they did write to me to notify their decisions to

:49:29. > :49:34.close it, and the more noisd I made in the media, the more willhng they

:49:35. > :49:36.were to meet with me here, to discuss their decision, but I think

:49:37. > :49:42.you would be quite right to suggest, and I would agree, that it was not

:49:43. > :49:46.exactly a process where the MP was being engaged as a very sensitive of

:49:47. > :49:50.the community of what was v`stly valuable to my community, btt more

:49:51. > :49:55.about assuaging my face, and trying to personas of that steps wdre being

:49:56. > :50:00.taken in mitigation. To rettrn to mites point another vulnerable, I

:50:01. > :50:03.think people are drawn out of their homes for various reasons, the

:50:04. > :50:08.elderly with Iggy drawn out over the course of the week to go into town

:50:09. > :50:11.to do their market, their b`nking, there library time. When yot remove

:50:12. > :50:15.banks and towns, and the answer you give them is instead we will teach

:50:16. > :50:18.you to be better at using a computer, that is all well `nd good,

:50:19. > :50:22.but it does not solve the f`ct that that journey into town, for some,

:50:23. > :50:27.will have been their interaction with the interactive world outside

:50:28. > :50:32.them, and digital exclusion is a very real problem. That dightal

:50:33. > :50:35.exclusion comes in two ways. Firstly, it is a matter of

:50:36. > :50:39.confidence. There are peopld who are just not very good at handlhng their

:50:40. > :50:44.affairs over the Internet. There are those who have been doing things the

:50:45. > :50:47.same way for a lifetime who don t trust putting their financi`l

:50:48. > :50:51.affairs in the hands of electrons on a screen, but want to give their

:50:52. > :50:55.money to a person over a cotnter, and see it locked away in the draw,

:50:56. > :50:59.and on its way to the bank's vaults. And then there is conductivhty. I

:51:00. > :51:04.know that this is not a rur`l, urban, issued, and I know that the

:51:05. > :51:07.government broadband roll-ott programme is making great advances

:51:08. > :51:11.in areas like mine, but the reality is that these banks are closing more

:51:12. > :51:16.quickly than the broadband network is being improved, and so even those

:51:17. > :51:18.who are willing and able to do their banking online, are not alw`ys able

:51:19. > :51:30.to do so. In a very eloquent descripthon of

:51:31. > :51:36.his area, mirrored across the UK, we had one department that was

:51:37. > :51:41.responsible for one area and we have the culture Department for `nother

:51:42. > :51:45.and it is also a survey by government to retain and regenerate

:51:46. > :51:54.town centres which has been ignored because he highlighted four into

:51:55. > :51:59.buildings in his small town. It strikes me well the Treasurx will

:52:00. > :52:04.have an interest in the provision of banking, DC MS will have thd

:52:05. > :52:09.provision of broadband. DEFRA might concern themselves with the overall

:52:10. > :52:18.impact on the viability of communities both in rural areas and

:52:19. > :52:22.in towns. I am also concerndd by the capacity of the Post Office to pick

:52:23. > :52:27.up the slack. They are often again and again and again as the root out

:52:28. > :52:31.of the bank closure and yet too often there are reasons why the Post

:52:32. > :52:39.Office cannot do more and I have all come to that shortly. Finally, the

:52:40. > :52:48.availability of free to use ATMs in our town centres, replacing and ATM

:52:49. > :52:51.outside a bank is not fair on the community that then find thdmselves

:52:52. > :53:02.needing to access their cash at that expense. In the United Statds, banks

:53:03. > :53:05.are required by regulators when they take significant deposits from

:53:06. > :53:09.particular communities to demonstrate they are offering

:53:10. > :53:14.significant financial services to those communities in return. Would

:53:15. > :53:19.he be tempted to think that such a requirement might have meant that

:53:20. > :53:24.his Glastonbury constituents might have had some confidence th`t the

:53:25. > :53:28.banks were going to help a credit union or community bank get up and

:53:29. > :53:34.running if those banks were still determined to Leave? De honourable

:53:35. > :53:41.gentleman steals my thunder because I had read Congress's community

:53:42. > :53:46.reinvestment act and I think there are some interesting things within

:53:47. > :53:51.it for the benefit of members, it does exactly as you suggest. It is a

:53:52. > :53:56.safety net that means when getting a banking licence in the US, xou can

:53:57. > :54:01.bank in all the affluent ardas but you are required to offer epual

:54:02. > :54:04.access to banking in less affluent areas and there are ways to make

:54:05. > :54:08.sure that is happening which the Government may wish to conshder The

:54:09. > :54:14.honourable gentleman for Chdster picked up on the Reuters research by

:54:15. > :54:21.Andrew MacAskill and Laurence White and that research is very worrying.

:54:22. > :54:26.I hope the Treasury are aware of it. 90% of closures in areas whdre the

:54:27. > :54:31.median household income is below the national average is deeply

:54:32. > :54:36.suspicious and I'm sure cannot be just a cover incidents. It concerns

:54:37. > :54:41.me enormously that the two banks that have closed the most branches

:54:42. > :54:46.since 2008 are the ones who benefited the most from the bailout

:54:47. > :54:52.of the hard-working taxpayers who they have subsequently turndd their

:54:53. > :54:54.backs on. I don't propose is a good Conservative to advocate thd

:54:55. > :54:59.interference with those banks business plans but I do think it is

:55:00. > :55:02.important to make sure that they are not focusing their branch ndtwork on

:55:03. > :55:05.the areas where they can make the most cash when the nation

:55:06. > :55:16.collectively bailed them out not too long ago. As those banks close and

:55:17. > :55:21.we are now down to fewer th`n 9 00 branches on UK high Street, payday

:55:22. > :55:26.lenders are opening branches at an alarming rate. I make no connection

:55:27. > :55:31.that payday lenders are targeting high streets where conventional

:55:32. > :55:34.banks have gone, but if the Reuters research is correct, and th`t the

:55:35. > :55:41.banks are closing at a more quick weight in areas that are less well

:55:42. > :55:46.off, and the payday lenders we know are targeting the very same areas,

:55:47. > :55:50.it bothers me enormously th`t on those high streets there is no

:55:51. > :55:56.access to proper convention`l banking products but there hs plenty

:55:57. > :56:03.of access to payday lenders. I am not sure that is socially jtst and

:56:04. > :56:06.it must be a concern for us all The impact on small businesses hs

:56:07. > :56:10.significant. The Federation for small businesses met with md having

:56:11. > :56:15.heard that this debate todax had been given and were falling over

:56:16. > :56:20.themselves to say they would be able to provide me with informathon. They

:56:21. > :56:24.have been hugely helpful. The reality is the bank branch network

:56:25. > :56:28.is most valuable to small businesses. Yes, we must worry about

:56:29. > :56:34.the vulnerable and isolated but they are a small number of banking, of

:56:35. > :56:39.those who need to access banking. It is the small business community that

:56:40. > :56:43.has no other choice. They rdly on cash, sometimes they have no other

:56:44. > :56:48.staff. Glastonbury is a gre`t example of a high streets where thou

:56:49. > :56:55.are lots of small shops, if you are in the market for crystals `nd Joss

:56:56. > :56:59.sticks, Glastonbury is your place. There are dozens that are thny and

:57:00. > :57:03.they only have one person working in them at a time and so when the

:57:04. > :57:10.moment comes to clear out the tail from that day's takings, thd shop

:57:11. > :57:15.must close. What was happenhng a year ago was a person would have won

:57:16. > :57:22.round the corner and do the banking and be back in the shop 15 linutes

:57:23. > :57:27.later. Now, unless they are fortunate enough to bank with one of

:57:28. > :57:31.the banks with whom post office has agreed functionality, they lust get

:57:32. > :57:36.in their cars and travel a few miles away and potentially be closed for

:57:37. > :57:41.an hour. It is unworkable. The trouble is not an option. The

:57:42. > :57:45.digitisation work change thhs. If you are going into a small shop

:57:46. > :57:57.where you are buying knick-knacks for small amounts of money,

:57:58. > :58:00.invariably you are paying in cash. The competition in markets `uthority

:58:01. > :58:03.have done research and they say branch convenience with the second

:58:04. > :58:12.most important factor when choosing a bank. 84% class bank branches as

:58:13. > :58:15.important to their business. Further research said one third of small and

:58:16. > :58:20.medium-size enterprises use bank branches at least once a wedk and

:58:21. > :58:26.the Federation for small businesses of all banking survey, 52% said they

:58:27. > :58:30.communicate with their backs in branch and three quarters s`id that

:58:31. > :58:36.if they still had a branch, that is where they would prefer to do their

:58:37. > :58:39.communication face to face. It is important to say because wh`t they

:58:40. > :58:44.are concerned about is not just their ability to bank in cash, they

:58:45. > :58:47.are concerned about that relationship. Their ability to

:58:48. > :58:52.informally access advice from someone in a branch who unddrstands

:58:53. > :58:56.the business climate in that area and that is being taken awax from

:58:57. > :59:00.them. They want something that is tailored, trusted and freelx

:59:01. > :59:03.available from someone they know and that they know lives and works

:59:04. > :59:14.amongst them rather than soleone on the end of a phone in a call centre.

:59:15. > :59:20.The basic backing that is rdquired for business is coming. This is not

:59:21. > :59:25.an entirely without mitigathon. There is greater online

:59:26. > :59:31.functionality, the business to pay in check by taking pictures of it by

:59:32. > :59:37.smartphone, this is great. The arrival of smart ATMs is also

:59:38. > :59:42.welcome. G4S are now saying they will drive round and collect

:59:43. > :59:46.people's cash and return cash to them. Businesses can make their own

:59:47. > :59:53.minds about that but the re`lity is whatever G4S may or may not do, they

:59:54. > :59:59.roll out of them is not happening before these branches close. Again

:00:00. > :00:05.they are happening afterwards and communities are being left with a

:00:06. > :00:09.gap. The post office network is the alternative as I have said. Post

:00:10. > :00:14.office are enthusiastic abott the opportunity, this is signifhcant for

:00:15. > :00:19.them as a business but the banks cannot have it both ways. If the

:00:20. > :00:23.post office is going to be offered up as the alternative when ` bank

:00:24. > :00:27.branch closes, the bank must be willing to surrender for

:00:28. > :00:34.functionality to the post office so that businesses and private users

:00:35. > :00:38.are able to access the full suite of banking services. What seems to be

:00:39. > :00:46.happening is that banks are offering up the post office as an alternative

:00:47. > :00:50.only for them to say, we don't give that sanction to the post office

:00:51. > :00:54.because they are worried thdy will steal their business. If thdy are

:00:55. > :00:59.worried about losing out to the competition in that town, stay in

:01:00. > :01:03.the town. If you have made the decision to Leave, except you need

:01:04. > :01:07.to surrender some of the functionality so that your customers

:01:08. > :01:13.have the mitigation that yot say they are getting on their community

:01:14. > :01:16.impact statement. Some anom`lies, it has been rumoured to me that they're

:01:17. > :01:22.right issues over the limits for cash, that the post office hs

:01:23. > :01:29.willing to deal with, that clearly needs to be removed because theres

:01:30. > :01:37.if there is a monster day's trainings trading, they will want to

:01:38. > :01:41.pay as soon as possible. Secondly, an issue over paying in slips which

:01:42. > :01:47.surely we must be able to gdt over. The banks need to close with these

:01:48. > :01:54.issues and sit down with thd post office and make sure the post office

:01:55. > :02:00.is able to deal with all nedds. The Government has a part to pl`y in

:02:01. > :02:05.this. The Post Office's arr`ngement with government is up for rdview in

:02:06. > :02:10.2018. I know the Minister whll speak forcibly within that renegotiation

:02:11. > :02:15.to stand up for the needs of the banking community given how

:02:16. > :02:18.important Post Offices are becoming to communities around the country

:02:19. > :02:26.for the purposes of doing their banking. The access to bankhng

:02:27. > :02:33.protocols review must be thorough and it must be candid. Commtnity

:02:34. > :02:38.impact statements are too mtch, too debatable. The transport data that

:02:39. > :02:42.is used on them is often in`ccurate. The data of the number that use the

:02:43. > :02:50.branch is inaccurate, banks a regular users are a couple of

:02:51. > :02:55.dozens. Campaigners save many thousand. The catchment are`s are

:02:56. > :03:02.shrunk right down and yet the reality is they serve a rur`l

:03:03. > :03:11.hinterland and the connectivity is too often not fully understood in

:03:12. > :03:18.those impact statements. My final point, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that

:03:19. > :03:22.when I spoke to Paschal and white from Reuters, they said it was

:03:23. > :03:29.difficult to access the dat` for what has closed and where shnce

:03:30. > :03:33.2008. If their research is right and it is disproportionately happening

:03:34. > :03:38.in poorer areas, I am sure banks will want to make sure that is the

:03:39. > :03:43.case. We in this House will be keen to know it is not the case. There is

:03:44. > :03:48.the simple matter of fairness in all of this. People value their access

:03:49. > :03:52.to a bank. There are many rdasons why the protocols need to bd

:03:53. > :04:00.strengthened and I am sure the Treasury will take note of this

:04:01. > :04:06.debate today. I am very grateful. Can I congratulate and thank the

:04:07. > :04:10.members for Chester, wealth for securing this debate today. I echoed

:04:11. > :04:16.the concerns raised by the lembers today. Looking at the evidence, it

:04:17. > :04:21.appears the Government lacks the will to hold banks feet to the fire.

:04:22. > :04:27.What happened when a review into banking culture was announcdd? It

:04:28. > :04:33.was quietly shelved. What h`ppened when branches are closing down at a

:04:34. > :04:41.rate of almost two a day across the UK, hitting rural communitids,

:04:42. > :04:45.deprived areas, the elderly and disabled? Very little indeed. What

:04:46. > :04:50.is happening when banks havd re-enact on their promise to retain

:04:51. > :04:55.the last banking town, meanhng that 1500 communities have lost `ll their

:04:56. > :05:00.banks. Absolutely nothing. Ht does not strike me as very fair that

:05:01. > :05:05.ordinary people are paying the price for the failure and the mistakes of

:05:06. > :05:10.banking executives. These pdople have been good to banks. Thdy have

:05:11. > :05:16.loyally paid in their savings month after month. They have taken out

:05:17. > :05:22.their mortgages with their bank In the cases of Lloyd's, Halif`x, RBS,

:05:23. > :05:27.they have bailed them out after they got themselves into trouble during

:05:28. > :05:31.the financial crisis. The b`nks have got themselves into trouble time and

:05:32. > :05:36.time again, lurching from one scandal to the next, aiding and

:05:37. > :05:44.abetting clients from avoidhng paying their taxes. Barclays, HSBC,

:05:45. > :05:50.Lloyds and RBS have been hit with fines of over 55 billion since 010.

:05:51. > :05:56.A figure set to rise to 75 billion by the end of next year and who take

:05:57. > :05:59.the hit? Their customers. Whose views and needs are completdly

:06:00. > :06:05.disregarded by the banks management teams. It is not as though there is

:06:06. > :06:10.no evidence out there to tell the banks their customers value their

:06:11. > :06:16.local branches and want thel to Remain. Research from the

:06:17. > :06:20.Competition and Markets Authority found 63% of current account

:06:21. > :06:25.customers felt having a convenient local branch with either essential

:06:26. > :06:30.or very important. Research conducted for TSB in June found 69%

:06:31. > :06:35.of people believed it is important to have a bank branch close to where

:06:36. > :06:39.they live. While more peopld are repaying small debts to fridnds or

:06:40. > :06:43.carrying out basic money management online or using an app on their

:06:44. > :06:48.phone, this does not mean that branches are becoming redundant Far

:06:49. > :06:54.from it. When it comes to bhg financial decisions like taking out

:06:55. > :06:59.a loan, or a mortgage, or sdeing financial planning advice, the

:07:00. > :07:02.social foundation market has shown majority of consumers still use

:07:03. > :07:12.branches. I might say in these troubldd

:07:13. > :07:15.economic times and waters that we are going into, ordinary folk want

:07:16. > :07:22.to be able to go into their branch and properly plan and get good

:07:23. > :07:28.advice. And its towns and vhllages and cities across the country, that

:07:29. > :07:35.is going to be nigh on impossible, and that is why this debate this

:07:36. > :07:40.afternoon is so important. Banks are disproportionately shutting shop in

:07:41. > :07:50.lower income areas, indeed 80% of the 600 branch closes that we have

:07:51. > :07:59.seen since 80s with the -- since April 2015 have been in are`s where

:08:00. > :08:06.areas are of a under the national income average. Major UK banks are

:08:07. > :08:09.simply closing branches in poor areas and opening or retainhng in

:08:10. > :08:14.more affluent areas, so we `re seeing the creation of a du`l

:08:15. > :08:18.financial system in all but name. One for the middle classes `nd the

:08:19. > :08:21.welfare, and another for those on lower incomes. The University of

:08:22. > :08:25.Nottingham has found that the least affluent third of the popul`tion is

:08:26. > :08:31.borne the brunt of two thirds of total closures since 1995. Hndeed,

:08:32. > :08:37.the rate of close is experidnced by traditional manufacturing and any --

:08:38. > :08:40.in inner-city areas is thred and a half times higher than areas defined

:08:41. > :08:44.by the academic researchers as Middle England, suburbs and small

:08:45. > :08:48.towns. It is a cruel twist of fate that those who are most likdly to be

:08:49. > :08:55.adversely affected by branch closures of the very people living

:08:56. > :08:59.in the areas where most branches close. I might say to that do we

:09:00. > :09:06.really want to turn this cotntry into areas that we see in the United

:09:07. > :09:12.States? Where those who are already deprived and poor are bereft of

:09:13. > :09:18.quality financial services, and are left to flounder? That is why this

:09:19. > :09:25.debate is again so important. I know this to be true, because earlier

:09:26. > :09:29.this year, HSBC decided to close its branch on because and I wrote in my

:09:30. > :09:38.constituency, after almost 000 years. It follows the closure of a

:09:39. > :09:45.branch by Barclay 's rank the year before. In just two weeks' time

:09:46. > :09:48.HSBC will close its door for the last time, and my constituents have

:09:49. > :09:55.been told to travel to Southgate if they want to access a branch. By

:09:56. > :10:02.bus, the journey takes at ldast 45 minutes. What is the impact of this

:10:03. > :10:08.closure of the elderly? What is the impact of this closure on the

:10:09. > :10:17.disabled? On the vulnerable? On local traders? They rely on the

:10:18. > :10:21.branch closures. I am appalled that HSP see -- HSBC management didn t

:10:22. > :10:24.see it is appropriate or evdn a matter of common courtesy to consult

:10:25. > :10:30.with a local member of Parlhament, the local authority, and

:10:31. > :10:33.councillors. Or the community. Before taking decisions. Adding it

:10:34. > :10:40.is an outrage because of cotrse my constituency is one of the

:10:41. > :10:46.government's and one of the mea s target regeneration areas of the

:10:47. > :10:50.country! And of in fact, thd Treasury has underwritten

:10:51. > :10:56.regeneration in Tottenham to the tune of ?500 million. We got these

:10:57. > :11:06.birds, yes, the best premiership football club! A new stadiul! They

:11:07. > :11:09.are building one in the constituency. And yet, they didn't

:11:10. > :11:15.think it was worth picking tp the phone to the local authoritx leader,

:11:16. > :11:19.or the local MP, to say we `re thinking about it? What do xou

:11:20. > :11:24.think? What will be high ro`d look like in the months and years ahead?

:11:25. > :11:28.I will give way. I thank thd honourable gentleman for giving way,

:11:29. > :11:32.and he is giving an important speech about the value of these banks in

:11:33. > :11:37.our communities. In my spirhts, I have had Barclays and HSBC

:11:38. > :11:46.contacting me about one closure in hedge ends for HSBC, and Barclays in

:11:47. > :11:50.countable. There is no point hearing from them, in my spirits, bdcause

:11:51. > :11:55.they have made up their minds, and it is a disappointing and vtlnerable

:11:56. > :11:58.place the be for my elderly and perhaps not Internet savvy

:11:59. > :12:03.residents. The honourable l`dy makes an excellent point and that was my

:12:04. > :12:08.experience. I am talking about consultation with democratically

:12:09. > :12:14.elected people. You certainly also be up to that you certainly should

:12:15. > :12:18.be able to consult with the local authority leader before dechding,

:12:19. > :12:26.asking what the impact might be and frankly, all of us as professionals,

:12:27. > :12:29.members of local authorities, we are used to confidential and prhvate

:12:30. > :12:33.conversations every day of the week. And sometimes we are able to

:12:34. > :12:38.privately say welcome if yot thought about this, have you thought about

:12:39. > :12:40.that? Actually, that is to do with the future economic context of that

:12:41. > :12:47.community, that the bank max well not be aware of. None of th`t! What

:12:48. > :12:52.I was presented with was a fait accompli. It was patronising.

:12:53. > :12:58.Frankly patronising by HSBC bank. And let me say also, as a young

:12:59. > :13:11.16-year-old, with what felt like very little prospects, way back in

:13:12. > :13:18.the early mid 1980s, I got ` little job over the summer holidays in that

:13:19. > :13:23.local HSBC bank, which was Lidland bank before, so I felt personally

:13:24. > :13:26.affronted that the bank where I d got my first prospects, putting on a

:13:27. > :13:31.suit, thinking that one day I might have a serious job, shut down and

:13:32. > :13:40.didn't even think to consult me didn't even think to... I m`de a lot

:13:41. > :13:43.in my local community of thd fact I used to work in the bag, and they

:13:44. > :13:46.were not interested. That is what big banking is done to in this

:13:47. > :13:51.country, after all that we have paid in. I am appalled, frankly, by the

:13:52. > :13:54.behaviour of HSBC, and I do think is important, given that the government

:13:55. > :13:59.talks about being a friend of small business and the high Street, that

:14:00. > :14:04.they think very carefully about this very issue, and in June 2014, set by

:14:05. > :14:09.you go, the British bankers Association, found that over 50 of

:14:10. > :14:17.people found a branch was ilportant, and that figure rises to 68$ of SME

:14:18. > :14:19.customers. The impact of br`nch closures go far beyond local

:14:20. > :14:23.businesses having nowhere to go to get credit, or to do their banking.

:14:24. > :14:27.The conference is for the whole high street are very grave indeed. Local

:14:28. > :14:31.retailers are hard hit by the fact that customers go elsewhere when

:14:32. > :14:36.they don't have easy access to cash. That is still good referencd of many

:14:37. > :14:39.sufferers, despite the rise of chipping paint and contactldss

:14:40. > :14:45.payment methods, and cash still accounts for 46% of high street

:14:46. > :14:49.sales, rising to 75% and newsagents and convenience stores will stop an

:14:50. > :14:54.average, local AGMs inject `bout ?16 per withdrawal directly into nearby

:14:55. > :14:59.stalls amounting to ?36 billion per year, over a third of high street

:15:00. > :15:02.spending contingent on the ready availability of cashpoint. H was

:15:03. > :15:09.told by HSBC in my local br`nch that one of the reasons they werd closing

:15:10. > :15:12.was footfall on the high Street Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I pointed

:15:13. > :15:19.to the fact, they seemed not to realise this, that we had h`d riots

:15:20. > :15:24.just a few years before! And that what we had found was that there

:15:25. > :15:28.were wonderful businesses that were wanting to support the high Street

:15:29. > :15:34.as it has made its way back out of those riots am not desert it! And

:15:35. > :15:38.given this is what is what hs meant to be one of our national

:15:39. > :15:46.institutions to prey on footfall as a reason was deeply, deeply painful

:15:47. > :15:51.to my constituents, and, yot know, in tough times, people remelber who

:15:52. > :15:55.their friends are, and I sax to the banks do things very, very carefully

:15:56. > :16:00.going forward, about its customer base, and how they feel when you

:16:01. > :16:04.desert a community that is `lready going through the mill, and is

:16:05. > :16:07.trying to build its way out of it. I think of part of this country for

:16:08. > :16:11.example that not so long ago had floods, for example. It takds a long

:16:12. > :16:17.time for a high Street, for a village or a town to get back over a

:16:18. > :16:20.flood. What they will be told, oh, footfall. Things were a bit

:16:21. > :16:24.depressed for a few months, so we just couldn't stand by, we

:16:25. > :16:30.disappearing. Well, customers have stood by them. It's about thme they

:16:31. > :16:39.grew some, as my mum would say, and stood by the community. I wonder if

:16:40. > :16:45.I can cancel my honourable friend to agree with me that perhaps part of

:16:46. > :16:50.the solution going forward hs to see more action by regulators and by

:16:51. > :16:53.government to encourage different kinds of banks to emerge, b`nks

:16:54. > :16:58.which are profit-making but not necessarily profit maximising, as

:16:59. > :17:03.many of the bank that he has listed and others have mentioned are always

:17:04. > :17:08.going to face pressure in the management view from shareholders to

:17:09. > :17:10.reduce costs with bank branch closures always likely to bd one of

:17:11. > :17:15.the options available, and therefore a different kind of bank is perhaps

:17:16. > :17:18.necessary, going forward. Mx honourable friend is absolutely

:17:19. > :17:26.right. Of course I'm all of this house will recall, you know, let's

:17:27. > :17:28.go back 20 years. The hugelx important role that building

:17:29. > :17:37.societies played in local communities. And we of course

:17:38. > :17:40.destroyed all that important relationships, and then thex all

:17:41. > :17:44.became banks. They all mergdd and became banks, and now we ard left

:17:45. > :17:50.where we are because that local proximity, that's different form of

:17:51. > :17:57.structure was lost, and now we have to reinvent it, and I hope that the

:17:58. > :18:00.honourable gentleman is part of that reinvention will stop the government

:18:01. > :18:05.might think very, very carefully about whether we need a revhew about

:18:06. > :18:10.these new structures, and if we do need of review, the Mandy do it is

:18:11. > :18:13.honourable member for Harrow, who knows a lot about mutualisation and

:18:14. > :18:18.cooperatives, because we kndw that back! We need land back on our high

:18:19. > :18:21.Street. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, can I just turned to the axhs

:18:22. > :18:27.banking protocol, which is currently under independent review by the

:18:28. > :18:31.Professor Russel Griggs, and I'm sure the government will refer to

:18:32. > :18:33.it. In response to my writtdn questions of last month, thd

:18:34. > :18:36.government revealed its belhef that bank should act in the best interest

:18:37. > :18:40.of their customers, and continue to serve the needs of their consumer as

:18:41. > :18:43.well as the wider commie, and it is imperative that banks live tp to the

:18:44. > :18:47.spirit as well as the letter of the commitment in the protocol. However,

:18:48. > :18:52.the government also revealed that they had not assessed the ilpact of

:18:53. > :18:56.the prodigal or bank compli`nce with their commitments, in the protocol.

:18:57. > :18:59.Pat the government have not bothered to assess the prodigal becatse they

:19:00. > :19:04.know it's basically an irrelevant will stop the protocol can't and

:19:05. > :19:07.does not aim to alter any ddcision, and as such pair used mere lip

:19:08. > :19:12.service to the idea of bankhng service accessibility. The breadth

:19:13. > :19:17.states that others banks decide to close a branch they will engage with

:19:18. > :19:21.local stakeholders to understand the impact on local businesses `nd

:19:22. > :19:24.consumers. Bit about these bigger, what is the point of this qtestion

:19:25. > :19:27.what anybody consultation after the decision has been made? This isn't a

:19:28. > :19:32.consultation, according to proper meaning of the word. It's jtst a

:19:33. > :19:36.notification of the closure, so could we perhaps change the word to

:19:37. > :19:39.gain notification, to avoid the conclusion of a consultation

:19:40. > :19:42.question of what horse has bolted it does make a blind bit of difference

:19:43. > :19:46.how customers or businesses will be affected so surely it would be

:19:47. > :19:51.making sense to have a propdr full and open conservation process when

:19:52. > :19:54.the bank is considering the future of a branch before serving the

:19:55. > :20:01.notice on the local community in question. Another problem whth the

:20:02. > :20:04.protocol is there is no firl of destination -- firm definithon of

:20:05. > :20:07.the present of services, wh`t that exactly means, and it leaves of

:20:08. > :20:13.course the disabled and elddrly with no choice but to take 90 minutes bus

:20:14. > :20:16.journey, which is not an addquate replacement by any stretch. It's

:20:17. > :20:23.clear that banks don't take into account public interest or the

:20:24. > :20:28.likely damage of closure and their decision but the impact, and I

:20:29. > :20:35.cannot see how access to thd bangle bank protocol agreement is ` woolly

:20:36. > :20:39.Sham at protecting bank namds of the bank have not complied with the

:20:40. > :20:41.commitment in the bread go because I presume their conclusion has been

:20:42. > :20:47.there is no method in place to police whether banks fill the

:20:48. > :20:51.commitments when closing down a branch. If a bank says they are

:20:52. > :20:55.closing down a branch but wd'll work out an arrangement with the post

:20:56. > :20:59.office so customers can bank there, or will move the ATM so customers

:21:00. > :21:04.can still use it, are these promises worth anything if there is no way to

:21:05. > :21:08.enforce them? Access to banking protocol is merely being usdd as a

:21:09. > :21:11.Trojan horse on both sides. The banks can claim that they h`ve

:21:12. > :21:14.followed the protocol, no m`tter how meaningless it is, and so their

:21:15. > :21:19.hands are clean, and they do not need to do any more. On that basis,

:21:20. > :21:24.Mr Deputy Speaker, it reallx is time that the government got a grip of

:21:25. > :21:28.what feels to me to be a quhet scandal and tragedy taking place

:21:29. > :21:32.across our country, which is really hurting a lot of local commtnities,

:21:33. > :21:33.and I commend my honourable friend for bringing this debate thhs

:21:34. > :21:45.afternoon. I am so pleased this debate has been

:21:46. > :21:50.brought forward today on such an important issue and I congr`tulate

:21:51. > :21:56.my honourable friend on sectring this debate and thank the b`ckbench

:21:57. > :22:01.committee for allocating thd time. I am pleased because this is `n issue

:22:02. > :22:07.which has blighted my area for many years. My constituency is one of if

:22:08. > :22:10.not the most rural area in the UK and includes the smallest town in

:22:11. > :22:18.Britain and numerous beautiful small the digits. It is also the land of

:22:19. > :22:23.small business owners. With farmers, shopkeepers and individual traders

:22:24. > :22:28.all relying on having good banking services to keep their businesses

:22:29. > :22:35.going. I myself ran a small business before coming to this House and know

:22:36. > :22:40.the need for good banking sdrvices. It also has a large elderly

:22:41. > :22:47.population and while many mdmbers may try to claim the crown, I've put

:22:48. > :22:52.the beautiful Brecon Beacons down as the very best place to retire to not

:22:53. > :22:57.just in Britain, but also in the world. I am pleased that so many

:22:58. > :23:02.have chosen to retire to my constituency but many if not most if

:23:03. > :23:05.not all of these people need access to reliable banking services for

:23:06. > :23:10.their financial needs as many do not use the Internet. As we havd heard,

:23:11. > :23:14.we do have to recognise branch closures are not a new problem.

:23:15. > :23:19.Branch networks have been contracting for a number of years

:23:20. > :23:23.and for a number of reasons. In recent months, I have had m`ny

:23:24. > :23:30.meetings with regional and local bank branch managers who ard telling

:23:31. > :23:33.me that the rise and the rise again of technology is diminishing the

:23:34. > :23:37.need for local branch services as people look to bank online or on

:23:38. > :23:41.their phone rather than in the branch themselves. Further hndustry

:23:42. > :23:49.issues have compounded the problem with cost-cutting exercises,

:23:50. > :23:54.mergers, and footfall numbers all leading to bank losses around the

:23:55. > :23:58.UK. This is not a trend that will end any time soon which is not

:23:59. > :24:03.something my constituents or indeed yours would want to hear. The

:24:04. > :24:08.problem is expressly acute hn rural areas such as mine. You can take 40

:24:09. > :24:12.minutes or more for someone to drive from their own far more village to

:24:13. > :24:16.the nearest town to visit a branch and when one branch closes, it is

:24:17. > :24:26.often the last remaining bank in the town as we have seen very rdcently.

:24:27. > :24:30.This drive then becomes even longer and even more impossible. Rtral

:24:31. > :24:35.businesses also rely on the services they receive in a branch. C`sh and

:24:36. > :24:41.check transactions asked all made in abundance by a small businesses on

:24:42. > :24:47.the high Street and local Btttler only local branches can offdr the

:24:48. > :24:52.services. Many branches suggest post offices as an alternative btt as

:24:53. > :24:57.several members can attest, post offices have also closed. Some bank

:24:58. > :25:02.branches also face reduced opening hours. There is currently a

:25:03. > :25:09.consultation going on in my constituency with branches. I know

:25:10. > :25:15.we are meant to be steering clear of anything like project fear, but it

:25:16. > :25:21.seems to me that reduced hotrs for banks is simply a precursors to

:25:22. > :25:25.closure. But at present it hs those areas in which branches are closing

:25:26. > :25:31.entirely that is of the gre`test concern to me. In my constituency,

:25:32. > :25:38.many areas have faced closure is indeed passed. A number of ly

:25:39. > :25:43.constituents have raised thd concerns about banking in a petrol

:25:44. > :25:48.barrage or many similar places. Many are worried about issues of

:25:49. > :25:52.discretion and privacy when it comes to their financial matters `nd I

:25:53. > :25:57.agree this is a real concern. Although I say all this, I do

:25:58. > :26:00.understand partly worthy banks are coming from. I understand that the

:26:01. > :26:06.model does have to be viabld order to operate. There would be no sense

:26:07. > :26:11.in allowing customers access to their accounts via a branch but

:26:12. > :26:15.having to lower interest rates on their accounts into the mind is to

:26:16. > :26:20.pay for it. Discharge makes no sense and would be less palatable to

:26:21. > :26:28.customers than closure. What can the banks to? In my area, I belheve

:26:29. > :26:32.where we lost banks, a mobile bank offers a solution. Some banks

:26:33. > :26:41.already provide the services. In other members constituencies and not

:26:42. > :26:45.in mine. They have proved to be a great success. Mobile backs provide

:26:46. > :26:50.the access customers and businesses need to their banking services while

:26:51. > :26:53.giving the banks a flexibilhty of setting up in a suitable location

:26:54. > :26:58.without the need for rent and bills to be paid such as they havd been a

:26:59. > :27:02.fixed branch. To that end, H have written to the banks to reqtest they

:27:03. > :27:05.bring the services to my constituency to stem the tide of

:27:06. > :27:11.closure and provide these sdrvices local people are crying out for

:27:12. > :27:15.Several have responded and H thanked them for their responses but that's

:27:16. > :27:19.far, few have been willing to commit to this provision. One of the main

:27:20. > :27:24.reasons for the lack of comlitment is the cost to providing services

:27:25. > :27:27.through a mobile bank. I wotld be interesting to hear from thd

:27:28. > :27:32.Government benches what mord we can do to support the banks in promoting

:27:33. > :27:40.mobile services to the most rural areas to give local people `nd

:27:41. > :27:44.businesses the support they need. Two final points. I promise to make

:27:45. > :27:48.them quick. In the banking protocols, banks are requirdd to

:27:49. > :27:52.consider the local populace access to good broadband and when

:27:53. > :27:59.considering when to close a branch. In my constituency, we have some of

:28:00. > :28:04.the worst connection speeds going, something I'd join many members in

:28:05. > :28:09.constantly bending the ear of the honourable member footage could I

:28:10. > :28:14.wonder, considering a number of bank closures, just how much of `

:28:15. > :28:19.consideration broadband accdss is being given by the banks to this

:28:20. > :28:23.issue. Perhaps we shall havd to wait and see in the upcoming revhew what

:28:24. > :28:28.conclusion is drawn on this issue and we are all watching closely A

:28:29. > :28:34.final point and while I know it is not keeping in the theme of this

:28:35. > :28:39.debate, I feel it is import`nt to mention what happens to empty shop

:28:40. > :28:44.fronts when banks Leave towns and the knock on defence it has on our

:28:45. > :28:53.high streets. When a branch needs a town, footfall clearly falls. It is

:28:54. > :28:57.proven to fall and it is falling. This has not on consequences to

:28:58. > :29:02.local businesses as many br`nch customers will pop into the town

:29:03. > :29:07.after going to the bank, boosting our local economy. If banks Leave,

:29:08. > :29:11.they Leave this additional footfall behind but they also Leave behind an

:29:12. > :29:17.empty shop fronts which means lower rent for landlords. Each of these

:29:18. > :29:21.harm our local economies and I believe the banks should be required

:29:22. > :29:26.to make such considerations when considering a branch closurd. In

:29:27. > :29:31.summary, I would like to sed the Government resolve to do all it can

:29:32. > :29:36.do to ensure that it supports local bank branches to keep them from

:29:37. > :29:48.closure and to keep bank services as close to home as is possibld.

:29:49. > :29:59.is a great pleasure to take part in this debate, to follow my ndxt door

:30:00. > :30:06.but one neighbour about 65 or 7 miles away and I would also like to

:30:07. > :30:14.congratulate my honourable friend and the members in securing this

:30:15. > :30:18.debate. I would like to beghn with a totally nonsensical hypothesis

:30:19. > :30:23.because I feel that after l`st week's Brexit vote, there is

:30:24. > :30:28.probably no hypothesis which is quite too nonsensical to

:30:29. > :30:35.contemplate. Let me suggest that a law was passed in this placd after

:30:36. > :30:39.which it was decreed that no community with fewer than 14,00

:30:40. > :30:46.people should be allowed to have a retail outlet. Not a single shop. We

:30:47. > :30:50.would all complain and people and communities of 15,000 or less would

:30:51. > :30:56.complain and we would say, that is ludicrous! And then the people

:30:57. > :31:04.responsible for the law would then say, we have thought of a workable

:31:05. > :31:09.compromise. Perhaps a littld vending machine, with baby milk, brdad,

:31:10. > :31:15.chocolate bars and a bit of fruit. Let's call it an ATM for sake of

:31:16. > :31:20.convenience. 1-macro may have to pay more for the privilege but let us do

:31:21. > :31:24.that and then people in comlunities of 15,000 or less would nod their

:31:25. > :31:29.heads in gratitude and recognise that is what the world has become

:31:30. > :31:35.like. Of course this is absolute nonsense. We are not talking about a

:31:36. > :31:41.world where shops would necdssarily close in very small or meditm-sized

:31:42. > :31:46.communities but when it comds to the banking sector, that is exactly what

:31:47. > :31:53.is happening right around us. The survey showed that HSBC, RBS,

:31:54. > :32:00.Barclays and Lloyds Banking Group were among the banks that h`ve cut

:32:01. > :32:10.600 branches from between April 2000 and 15- April 2016 and the figure

:32:11. > :32:15.was 333 branches just this xear My constituency gives an exact sample

:32:16. > :32:22.of the crisis that we are f`cing in this area. The constituency of Clwyd

:32:23. > :32:35.South which covers 240 square miles has lost eight bank branches since

:32:36. > :32:45.2010. The town of Llangollen, North Wales's Lodge is a village which is

:32:46. > :32:50.almost 10,000, the industri`l village have all lost bank branches,

:32:51. > :32:58.the latter two just in April this year. In fact, my 240 squard miles

:32:59. > :33:05.constituency has precisely one bank left. In the town of Khan Coughlan.

:33:06. > :33:11.In all cases the banks I have mentioned were either HSBC or

:33:12. > :33:16.NatWest and it is only Barclays that has a single bank branch left. That

:33:17. > :33:22.is the scale of the crisis. Of course it causes many, many

:33:23. > :33:26.practical difficulties. Colleagues have raised in this debate the

:33:27. > :33:32.issues affecting many elderly people. I am intrigued when I

:33:33. > :33:39.communicated with HSBC at the start of the year, concerning the plight

:33:40. > :33:45.of the closures of bank branches, Jonathon band, regional dirdctor,

:33:46. > :33:50.had this to say, I am disappointed that the closure of these branches

:33:51. > :33:56.will affect elderly customers within your community. We are conscious of

:33:57. > :33:59.the impact a branch closure can have on our customers and partictlarly

:34:00. > :34:08.the elderly and those with lobility issues. Oh, dear, is that the best

:34:09. > :34:14.we can do? And so too we he`rd about, I pose the questions to him

:34:15. > :34:23.in writing about the bank branches closing, how many use them? How many

:34:24. > :34:28.was held in its account? I had not realised that all of this w`s

:34:29. > :34:32.totally commercially sensithve information. I wasn't asking for a

:34:33. > :34:38.list of how much everybody hn the area had in their bank accotnts

:34:39. > :34:42.although I dare say some max have an interesting to read. I wantdd to

:34:43. > :34:47.know how much was being held into the accounts and how many pdople use

:34:48. > :34:52.the bank branches. It is all a great crisis. It is a crisis that is

:34:53. > :34:57.affecting particularly but not exclusively rural areas and small

:34:58. > :35:01.towns. There is a massive problem in this which some other colle`gues

:35:02. > :35:14.have raised during the debate in terms of how it affects bushnesses.

:35:15. > :35:22.While the post, it is possible to open individual accounts with post

:35:23. > :35:26.offices, we have to recognise there is huge variations at the fhnancial

:35:27. > :35:31.services offered within those post offices, something I think we always

:35:32. > :35:39.need to remember. In terms `s the honourable member raised, in terms

:35:40. > :35:45.of what happens with business banking, that varies hugely from

:35:46. > :35:51.branch to branch as well. I think we need probably what he's a bhg sort

:35:52. > :35:56.out, because if we do not h`ve some sort of sort out on this issue, call

:35:57. > :36:04.it a protocol, call it something else if you want, we will bd in an

:36:05. > :36:09.even greater crisis. I would like to turn as well to the points `bout

:36:10. > :36:19.ATMs that several members h`ve raised. It is a nonsense how we are

:36:20. > :36:23.pricing people out, often in poor communities and more remote

:36:24. > :36:28.communities. It is a nonsense that you should have to pay monex to

:36:29. > :36:31.accept, receive money from xour bank account. That is something that

:36:32. > :36:40.needs serious looking after. The beautiful town in my

:36:41. > :36:44.constituency, and I think the Speaker has been to the town that

:36:45. > :36:50.I'm talking about. I'm not sure if he has been on the steam tr`ins or

:36:51. > :36:56.the heritage trail that is ` tremendous place in the dev`lue area

:36:57. > :37:00.of outstanding natural beauty. What a shame, Mr Speaker, if you arrive

:37:01. > :37:05.there one Saturday morning `nd found that the ATM cashpoint has run out

:37:06. > :37:10.of money. That would reduce your enjoyment in that beautiful area as

:37:11. > :37:14.it does so many other peopld. But it is not just terrorists, of course,

:37:15. > :37:20.important though they are, that this effects. It is people's -- tourists.

:37:21. > :37:25.It is people who live miles and miles away from the next ATL. It is

:37:26. > :37:30.not that we have more snow or ice or a any thing than anywhere else but

:37:31. > :37:37.in the winter, there are problems in that area too. And let's me, if I

:37:38. > :37:41.may, I know many others are trying to this problem. My honourable

:37:42. > :37:47.friend, the member for Chester, made a very good idea about commtnity

:37:48. > :37:51.banking and banking hubs in various areas. He offered Chester as a pilot

:37:52. > :37:54.when I suggest it might be nice to have pilot across the border as a

:37:55. > :38:02.well and then we could comp`re notes. But one of the suggestion I

:38:03. > :38:07.would like to offer is how we use mobile banks. The idea that a mobile

:38:08. > :38:11.bank will come into the comlunity for one hour a week, I think is not

:38:12. > :38:15.good enough because this is not an ice cream van we are talking about.

:38:16. > :38:21.This is basic access to fin`nce Some banks don't even have these.

:38:22. > :38:26.HSBC does not even do the mobile bank and where it happens in my

:38:27. > :38:32.area, it tends to be NatWest, but those mobile banks do not cover a

:38:33. > :38:36.full range of banking services that ordinary bank branches would have.

:38:37. > :38:42.What I believe the Government should look at is whether they shotld be

:38:43. > :38:47.legal statutory requirements for access to finance into commtnities.

:38:48. > :38:52.I am not suggesting that evdry bank that has ever closed its doors would

:38:53. > :38:57.certainly have to re-open or that they would all have to provhde

:38:58. > :39:00.mobile services so that perhaps you would have three mobile banks all

:39:01. > :39:05.standing next to each other on the high streets twice a week, H am not

:39:06. > :39:11.suggesting that, but was I `m suggesting is what do we sed as a

:39:12. > :39:15.basic minimum service for b`nking? Perhaps we look at some of the

:39:16. > :39:19.supermarkets, some of the storage that now offer banking. How do we

:39:20. > :39:28.bring those into the equation? One thing I do know is we cannot be in a

:39:29. > :39:33.situation where constituenches like mine PC in a six-year period eight

:39:34. > :39:37.banks close with only one b`nker left, something which is happening

:39:38. > :39:41.the length and breadth of otr country, because it is not right on

:39:42. > :39:45.rural communities, it is not right on small towns. As my honourable

:39:46. > :39:50.friend the member for Tottenham said, it is not even right when that

:39:51. > :39:55.happens in very built-up urban areas either. So I would urge the Minister

:39:56. > :39:59.and the Shadow Chancellor to consider these matters as they

:40:00. > :40:07.respond because they are crtcially important for all our communities.

:40:08. > :40:12.Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst it would be clearly wrong and naive to