← Back to House of Commons Debates
30 June 2016
Lead MP
David Lammy
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
TaxationStandards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 55
At a Glance
David Lammy raised concerns about in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The motion notes the important role of the Land Registry in registering land and property ownership, expresses concern over potential privatisation due to links with offshore tax havens and its impact on transparency and accountability. It regrets the Government’s decision for short-term profit at the expense of public interest and opposes privatisation, calling for reconsideration.
Contributes to the debate by highlighting the strength of constituent concern over privatising the Land Registry.
Supports the initiative for transparency and mentions a Bill aimed at preventing money laundering through property, emphasising the need for an uncorrupted service like the Land Registry.
Emphasises public confidence in institutions such as the Land Registry during uncertain economic times, questioning the risk of privatisation.
Questions whether privatisation aims to maintain professionalism and integrity or merely serves a short-term fiscal goal for the Treasury.
Supports the notion that the proposal is ideologically driven, aimed at reducing transparency in public institutions.
Highlights concerns about commercial monopoly over valuable data and lack of incentive for improved accessibility under privatisation.
Gareth Thomas
Lab Co-op
Harrow West
Raises business concerns over potential hikes in fees and profit motives distorting the Land Registry's role as a public institution.
Argues for the Land Registry’s independence to innovate, suggesting it should be able to create value without being sold off.
Valerie Vaz
Lab
Walsall and Bloxwich
Acknowledges the economic case against privatisation by pointing out that the Land Registry is self-funding and has returned money to the Treasury.
Liz Kendall
Lab
Leicester West
Points out the contradiction between government claims of retaining ownership while allowing a private company to make changes. References John Manthorpe's critique.
David Lammy
Lab
Tottenham
Acknowledges support from colleagues and reiterates that most registrars oppose the act, emphasising that professional opinion should be heeded. Discusses potential issues with service fees under a private company and lack of competition due to the Land Registry's unique status.
Rupa Huq
Lab
Ealing Central and Acton
Supports her right hon. Friend, highlighting the complexity of London’s property market and professional condemnation of proposals as reasons for the Government to reconsider. Expresses concern over further complications.
David Lammy
Lab
Tottenham
Fully agrees with his hon. Friend's concerns about economic uncertainty and short-term thinking, reinforcing the argument against privatisation due to potential fee increases and loss of public oversight.
Lilian Greenwood
Lab
Nottingham South
Acknowledges her right hon. Friend’s efforts in securing the debate and expresses support for those working at the Land Registry. Questions whether economic uncertainty post-referendum should prompt reconsideration of privatisation, citing professional opinion against it.
David Lammy
Lab
Tottenham
Expands on concerns regarding fee increases under private ownership and questions the rationale for privatising a profitable entity. Criticises government's disregard for long-term public interest over short-term profit, referencing historical reviews and recent consultation outcomes.
John Stevenson
Con
Carlisle
Acknowledges the importance of retaining the Land Registry in state hands, noting its central role in property transactions and its need for modernisation. He supports the privatisation concept but is cautious due to the registry's central role in property rights.
Matthew Offord
Con
Hertford and Stortford
Questions the rationale behind seeking to privatise a public monopoly, doubting the market’s ability to bring benefits in such a scenario.
Rob Flello
Lab
Stoke-on-Trent South
Asks why the Government does not reinvest profits into improving the Land Registry instead of considering privatisation.
Madeleine Moon
Lab
Bridgend
Highlights concerns from constituents working at the Land Registry about adapting to new policy guidelines and worries that these abilities will diminish under private sector control.
Caroline Lucas
Green
Brighton, Pavilion
Requests clarification on how privatisation would impact transparency in land ownership.
Alan Johnson
Lab
Hull West and Hessle
Commends the debate’s initiator and discusses the significance of the Land Registry office in Hull. He emphasises that privatisation is motivated by profit rather than service improvement, citing past reviews rejecting such moves.
Liz Kendall
Lab
Leicester West
Asks if the argument against splitting core functions remains valid today, referring to previous quinquennial review findings.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Highlights the critical nature of the Land Registry as part of national infrastructure. Acknowledges support for digital transformation but raises concerns about prioritising service quality over financial gains, advocating for long-term stability in any privatisation model. Emphasises the importance of ensuring data remain freely accessible to the public.
Victoria Prentis
Con
Banbury
Responds briefly, referencing historical context from East Germany's unification, indicating challenges with land registry integration during political transitions. Offers a counterpoint by drawing on past experiences but does not elaborate further.
Madeleine Moon
Lab
Barry
Questions the necessity of privatising the Land Registry to achieve modernisation and investment, suggesting that building in flexibility for entrepreneurship within the current structure could address these needs without the risks associated with full privatisation.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
The speaker discusses the acceptable form of privatisation for infrastructure services such as the Land Registry, suggesting it should be akin to an operating company owned by stakeholders rather than a separate business entity. He emphasises that any privatisation must include a full assessment of international precedents and ensure the Office for National Statistics has access to collate and publish data freely online. The speaker also expresses openness to various forms of ownership as long as it ensures stability, open data publication, and customer responsiveness.
Carolyn Harris
Lab
Neath and Swansea East
The MP declares an interest in the Land Registry's operations within her constituency and highlights its socioeconomic importance. She criticises the Government’s decision to revisit privatisation plans despite previous consultations showing 95% of respondents opposed such a move. Harris argues that the Treasury is driving this initiative purely for short-term fiscal reasons, ignoring long-term benefits and public sentiment.
Lilian Greenwood
Lab
Nottingham South
Supporting her Labour colleague, she mentions a report from the New Economics Foundation which suggests that privatising the Land Registry would not be financially beneficial in the long run. The plan fails on its own terms according to this analysis.
Chris Elmore
Lab
Bridgend
Agrees with Carolyn Harris, pointing out that there is public outcry against the privatisation of the Land Registry due to its profitability and trustworthiness. He argues it is unclear why the Government would consider such a move.
Will Quince
Con
Stalybridge and Hyde
Congratulates the right hon. Member for Tottenham on securing the debate. Acknowledges his mandate to balance the books but is not ideologically against privatisation, though recognises it may cause disagreement with Opposition Members. Discusses personal experience as a property solicitor using the Land Registry and acknowledges its helpfulness despite occasional slow service. Supports innovation in the Land Registry but opposes privatising due to its role in land and property ownership, guaranteeing title to registered estates, and providing data. Emphasises that privatisation could undermine integrity, impartiality, and trust in the property market. Criticises potential anti-competitive nature of a private monopoly on commercially valuable data and increased fees for customers. Suggests no need for change given its financial performance and support from stakeholders.
Durham
Mrs Blackman-Woods argues against the privatisation of the Land Registry, stating that it would damage its reputation for independence and could cause job losses in her constituency. She highlights the global recognition of the UK's Land Registry as a model of good practice and emphasises concerns raised by experts about potential conflicts of interest and reduced public scrutiny if privatised. She also notes the lack of public demand for privatisation, citing a 2014 consultation where 91% disagreed with the idea. The MP shares emails from constituents expressing concern over job losses and financial implications, as well as broader economic impacts on the north-east of England. Additionally, she mentions that in recent years, the Land Registry has been a net contributor to the treasury, producing surpluses annually. She raises doubts about the Government's ability to secure a good deal for the British public given past instances like Royal Mail privatisation.
Richard Drax
Con
South Dorset
He thanked the Backbench Business Committee and co-sponsored the debate. He expressed concerns about the proposal to privatise the Land Registry, citing issues such as its quasi-judicial nature, the risk of undermining property security, the potential for increased costs, the threat to employee jobs, and the danger of private ownership leading to corruption or instability. He emphasised that 95% of consultation responses were against the privatisation idea.
Chris Stephens
SNP
Glasgow South West
He spoke in his capacity as chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group, supporting concerns about job losses and increased property fraud risks if the Land Registry were privatised. He referenced a New Economics Foundation report suggesting that only an in-house Land Registry can deliver quality services while generating new revenue.
Jim McMahon
Lab Co-op
Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton
He pointed out the value of unregistered land and the importance of the Land Registry's role in assessing legitimate claims on such land. This highlights a broader concern about the privatisation's impact beyond titled and registered properties.
Margaret Ferrier
Ind
Rutherglen and Hamilton West
She questioned whether the idea of privatizing repatriation and burial services for war casualties was part of a broader ideological agenda from the Government, suggesting that it is not solely about economic efficiency but also driven by ideology.
Chris Stephens
SNP
Glasgow South West
It is quite clear that we have an ideological Government, and they will be debating among themselves how far that ideology will take them. If the Land Registry is privatised, it would not be subject to freedom of information requests or the Freedom of Information Act, and it would be easier to conceal information on that basis. There is also the issue of local land charges; the consultation on the matter contains only a passing reference to privatisation plans and no mention of what impact they would have on local land charges or the local land charges service. In 2014, the Land Registry added services such as land charges but may now be sold off to a large conglomerate before the nationalisation has even taken place. The former chief land registrar John w stated that land registration is not an activity that any responsible Government can transfer to the private sector.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
I support the principle of privatisation, but I have concerns about the specific proposal for the Land Registry. The Treasury’s criteria for sale are maximising capital receipts, providing better customer service, and reducing Government control, however, this could create a new private sector monopoly without effective competition. Selling it would only return 8-10% annually while borrowing money costs 1%. We should not let a similar culture of corporate obfuscation in pursuit of profits happen as with BT. The Land Registry has recently produced over £100 million per year surplus and should be kept in public ownership for long-term strategic benefits. It is important to maintain property rights underpinning economic success, and the Land Registry's digital information could be misused by a private company. The Government have introduced new initiatives on beneficial ownership; it would be better if they are maintained or improved rather than weakened. All those in the property sector I've spoken with oppose this move.
The Government is committed to providing 1 million new homes by 2020 and increasing home ownership. Privatisation of the Land Registry might jeopardise its service to home buyers in the future, which could be detrimental to the housing market.
Nia Griffith
Lab
Llanelli
The privatisation of the Land Registry would rob taxpayers of millions of pounds as it brings £100 million into the Treasury each year. The previous consultation was a sham and ignored respected independent bodies such as the Law Society, which expressed concerns that privatisation would lead to a private monopoly with rip-off fees and poor service for clients.
Chris Matheson
Lab
Cardiff South and Penarth
This proposal is part of a pattern where debt is nationalised and profit is privatised, which is unjust. The Land Registry brings significant profits to the Treasury that should remain in public hands.
Nia Griffith
Lab
Llanelli
My hon. Friend puts it concisely. Let us remember what happened with Royal Mail. Who is to say that this Tory Government will not be wilfully incompetent and will not sell off the Land Registry at a bargain basement price, as they did with Royal Mail, depriving the public purse of the true value of the asset? Even worse, we hear that the private companies interested in taking over the Land Registry have links with tax havens. It would be a double whammy: first, the Treasury may lose the revenue that the Land Registry brings in; and then, to add insult to injury, the Treasury may lose out because profits are offshored. We would lose not only the revenue but some of the tax take. In situations such as that with the Panama papers the public interest would be seriously hampered if FOI did not apply, as I understand it would not were the Land Registry a private company. For all the reasons mentioned both by me and by my hon. Friends, I implore the Minister to think again. He should listen as well to Government Members who also have concerns. Privatising the Land Registry is simply not the right thing to do.
Lucy Allan
Con
Telford
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this really important debate... The employees I have met are long-serving, highly experienced members of staff who have gained invaluable experience, expertise and knowledge of their roles over the years. They make an important contribution to that successful business. Telford is a great place to live and work. Businesses move there all the time. It has a unique rural-urban identity, in the heart of rural Shropshire but with a vibrant urban twist... I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills for taking the time to listen to me and hear my constituents’ concerns at a recent meeting.
Bill Esterson
Lab
Sefton Central
Everyone who has spoken in this excellent debate has consistently come to the conclusion that the Government consultation should conclude that the Land Registry should remain in public hands, and that privatisation should be rejected. That has been the very clear message from speakers from all parts of the House... The proposal to privatise the Land Registry highlights the choice between a quick buck and long-term stability.
City of Durham
Agrees with Bill Esterson that it would have been helpful if the Minister had met the petitioners who handed over a significant number of signatures at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Bill Esterson
Lab
Sefton Central
Points out the success of the Land Registry over 150 years without costing taxpayers anything, making a profit in most recent years. He argues that privatisation is not an economically coherent approach and would undermine public trust. Mentions potential buyers' links to offshore tax havens and foreign ownership concerns.
Chris Matheson
Lab
Alyn and Deeside
Concerned about placing something so fundamental to the UK in foreign hands, especially when these companies have ties to offshore tax havens.
Bill Esterson
Lab
Sefton Central
Agrees with Chris Matheson’s concern over foreign ownership and cites examples of previous unpopular government policies timed similarly. Highlights the overwhelming public opposition against privatisation as shown in polls, petitions, and public responses.
Gordon Marsden
Lab
Blackpool South
Comments that similar tactics did not work well for the Government in the past.
Bill Esterson
Lab
Sefton Central
Reiterates concerns over timing and public opposition, arguing privatisation risks destabilising the property market and undermining transparency. Questions economic arguments supporting private ownership and highlights benefits of maintaining state control for long-term stability.
Alan Johnson
Lab
Asks why, if the Conservatives privatised other companies, they did not consider privatisation for the Land Registry.
Bill Esterson
Lab
Sefton Central
Questions whether framing the consultation about how to privatise indicates a fundamental commitment to privatisation rather than merely exploring options.
David Lammy
Lab
Tottenham
Suggests that if no one supports privatisation, it would be important for the House of Commons to demonstrate its opposition. He also expresses concern about Treasury-driven proposals.
Expresses confusion over why a consultation was held when there are no plans to privatise.
George Freeman
Con
Mid Norfolk
Explained the context of the current public financial crisis, the need for creative solutions to generate revenue and support services, acknowledged the concerns about transparency and integrity raised by other MPs, and emphasised that no decision has been made yet on privatising the Land Registry. He also mentioned the importance of not selling state or private data, ensuring it is used for innovation and research without compromising privacy.
David Lammy
Lab
Tottenham
Across the House, there is opposition to the privatisation of the Land Registry. The Minister acknowledged that he was making a case for looking at it but failed to make a compelling argument. He used phrases such as ‘listening very carefully to the House’ and ‘merely looking at it’. With the current majority in the House, the Government would not command support for this privatisation. Those concerned across the country and employees of the Land Registry can find comfort in today’s debate.
Government Response
The Government has carried out a consultation but confirms that there is absolutely no plan to privatise the Land Registry. The rationale for previous privatisations was competition, investment, and reducing liabilities on the public balance sheet. Responded to concerns about transparency, integrity, and potential monopolies. Acknowledged the need for careful consideration of timing and models for delivering public services in collaboration with the private sector. Emphasised that no decision has been made on privatising the Land Registry and that the Government is listening to views expressed.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.