Land Registry

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Walker. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson)—my father represented that seat, so I understand some of the specific constituency issues he has mentioned. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) managed to secure this debate.

The hon. Member for Peterborough is absolutely right that there was a period under the previous Government during which a number of us who were involved with land registries in our constituencies had meetings with the then Minister, Michael Wills, to express our concerns. The economy was then in a downturn and the Land Registry was finding things quite difficult financially, for a whole range of reasons, but the position has now changed, as has the potential trading position. As the hon. Member for Peterborough pointed out, there is potentially now scope for money to go back into the Treasury, because the Land Registry is a successful enterprise.

The proposal suggests splitting away the Land Registry policy arm—comprising around 30 staff—and having a commercial delivery arm. The options for the latter are set out: a GovCo, a joint venture partnership or contracting out. All those could lead us down the route to eventual privatisation, which is a major concern for all of us.

At the moment, we do not have clarity—indeed, there is quite a lot of confusion out there. It is partly due to the compressed nature of the consultation, but there are also issues involving Ministers’ approval for the Land Registry board to go ahead with a target operating model, which could lead to a significant rationalisation or downsizing of the organisation. However, we do not know what is in the TOM, as it is not public. It is difficult for people to make a submission to a consultation when the ground rules are not properly known and available. We could be saying that we want to do X, when in fact, according to suggestions and proposals in the TOM, Y would be a far more sensible route. The information is not available for people to respond intelligently to the consultation.

A number of organisations have mentioned the length of time available, which is not adequate as more and more small businesses come out of the woodwork. I have had a couple more letters today, on the back of the 90 that I have already received. I take the point made about differences in response, but more than 90 people have got in touch with me, and I am encouraging them all to feed into the consultation. From my perspective, this is all rather back to front. I know that the Minister’s colleagues felt a few weeks ago, rather perversely, that it would be misleading to provide any more detail. Does he take a different view?

Let us look at the implications of drastic change. Is the Minister aware that a decision to remove posts from cities such as Plymouth will pose problems? Plymouth is still heavily dependent on the public sector. The Government have the view that if they remove public sector jobs, they will be backfilled by the private sector, but a recent Centre for Cities report flagged up the fact that Plymouth is probably in a slightly different situation. Our peripherality makes it difficult for us to attract new business, and our issues with transport in recent weeks—the south-west has effectively been cut off—do not send out the message to private sector businesses, “Come and set up in Plymouth.”

Some 650 jobs sit in our Land Registry; there is a slight difference—about 50 full-time equivalents—between the figures provided on the ground to me and the figures in a parliamentary answer. Those jobs are well paid. They contribute to our economy significantly. More importantly, we have about 100 highly skilled IT people there. Plymouth has no capacity to soak up those people if they are not employed at the Land Registry. That would be a loss to the city, so I hope that the full socio-economic impact of any change, downsizing or moving of offices around the country would be seriously considered.

One option is a GovCo, which would require people to be imported to fill capability gaps. Is it the Minister’s intention to offer enhanced salaries, terms and conditions, as the Ministry of Defence has done? If so, I assume that she is aware of the huge mess that the GoCo has left in its wake. The Treasury is still baulking at offering the MOD freedoms and flexibilities. The union PCS says in one of its briefing notes that it assumes that the ability to vary pay will depend on the model chosen. At the moment, the Government’s own model, chosen by the MOD, is running up against the buffers. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister has the Treasury’s go-ahead to offer enhanced terms and conditions to people in a GovCo in this circumstance.

What is the Minister’s view on the experience of the Forensic Science Service, which has pursued a similar option? Can he confirm that the assumed benefits of being commercially competitive did not in fact materialise? Why does he feel that the Land Registry is different?

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. What does she think the motivation might be for pursuing that line of approach? If the Land Registry were making a loss, performing poorly or not providing customer satisfaction, perhaps we could understand. Why does she think the Government are intent on following this particular course?

[Alison Seabeck]

That is a good question. As the hon. Member for Peterborough said, if it ain’t broke, why fix it? We need to understand from the Minister exactly what the benefits of fixing it will be, or whether it is purely ideologically driven, leading in the long term to privatisation.

In Plymouth, the registry’s computing centre has been recognised as an award-winning success. There has been very little turnover of specialist staff, all of whom have an experienced Land Registry background, and unlike other Government computing centres in London, it does not constantly lose staff to the private sector. It is not an exaggeration to say that the registry’s successful computerisation of the land register, its fast online inquiry services and the development of online lodgement succeeded where others in Government, dependent on major outsourcing to private IT companies, have failed. We must look at what we do well, nurture it and learn from it.

Like other Members, I have been lobbied by organisations such as the Local Land Charges Institute and those involved in independent land searches. All have serious issues with the proposals, not least because of the target operating model and the fact that it has not been made public. I would welcome the Minister’s view on whether the options proposed will fragment the local land charging function, as those organisations feel it will. The LLCI feel that it will result in a poorer service to the property-buying public. Clearly, there are a range of views on the subject, but the property-buying public are stuck in the middle, and nothing that we have heard—either fact or rumour—inspires confidence in the process being undertaken by the Government and the board.

Members of the Property Codes Compliance Board feel that the proposed changes will negatively affect those involved in the house-buying process and affect the market and small and medium-sized businesses, as we have heard from hon. Members. Their view is that SMEs will be disproportionately affected by what they see as Government transferring current activity into a private-sector monopoly. They also express their concern about the accuracy of the impact assessment.

There are complaints all round about the consultation, involving its accuracy, the timing, the process, the questions and the fact that a significant part of the picture has not been painted for those responding. I have not received a single representation from any organisation or individual in favour of the proposals. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) for securing this timely debate and making such a powerful case in support of keeping the Land Registry much as it is. Like many hon. Members here, I am concerned by the Government’s recent statement on the future of the Land Registry because of its potential impact on a national level; my primary concern, of course, relates to my constituency.

There is a large Land Registry office in Durham. Many local people are concerned about the possible consequences of the proposed changes announced in the consultation, should they go ahead. Significantly, they are concerned, as am I, about the potential impact on jobs in Durham. Durham has had a Land Registry for nearly 50 years. It has been the only one in the region since the closure of the office at York several years ago.

The Durham office is reported to be worth £10 million a year to the local economy. I hardly need remind the Minister that Durham’s economy has gone through a difficult period and is not yet fully experiencing what the Government are referring to as an economic upturn. Perhaps that is about to happen, but at the moment, things are still pretty depressed locally, leading to additional concern about what will happen to the Land Registry and the jobs that go with it if the proposals go through.

The Land Registry office in Durham provides many good-quality jobs that we desperately need locally, and I do not want that to be diminished in any way by potential privatisation. More than 400 highly skilled staff work at the Durham office. They provide a valuable national service that returns considerable value for money to the taxpayer. It is a strong brand and very much trusted by the people who have to use Land Registry services. It is vital that we should scrutinise the Government’s proposals and any impact that they could have. However, that is quite difficult because of the lack of information from the Government in the public domain.

In its consultation paper, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills proposes that the Land Registry be replaced by both a small Government body and a new company, which would carry out the current service delivery functions. There would be a new role of regulation and a maintained role of fee setting for a newly created Office of the Chief Land Registrar, which would sit within Government and be accountable to a Minister. It would set only the fees of the statutory functions, not the commercial services it might provide. That is one of the key aspects of the proposals that is creating a lot of nervousness in the sector.

The Government suggest three options for this new service delivery company: 100% owned by Government; jointly owned by Government and a private sector company; and 100% owned by Government, but day-to-day operations would be the responsibility of a private sector company on the Government’s behalf, which I think means outsourcing. Critically, what is not on the list is the Land Registry staying as it is.

Significantly, the Government consultation describes the above models as being considered for the “transition phase”. We are not sure exactly what that means, but I suspect it means a transition phase on the way to a future privatisation. If it does not mean that, the Minister will have to clarify the situation and be clear about what the transition phase means.

In addition, the Government’s consultation does not address the issue of why the changes are being proposed; it merely focuses on how they will be done. As other hon. Members have mentioned, there is no rationale as to why the changes are necessary. Several organisations, ranging from the PCS to the independent Law Society, have raised concerns regarding the consultation. The Law Society highlights the statement in the consultation that

“beyond the transformation phase, Government will review the ownership and control of the service delivery company in line with the policy on asset ownership”.

Importantly, this policy includes assessing options for moving assets to the private sector

“where there is no longer a strong policy reason for continued public ownership or where there is potential for an asset to operate more sensibly and efficiently in the private sector”.

As has been said, that potentially leaves the door open for complete privatisation after the transition period. Again, there is no information available to us about what the Government mean by

“more sensibly and efficiently in the private sector”.

I find the proposed changes to be remarkable, particularly given both the lack of evidence offered by the Government in support of their proposals and given that the Land Registry currently operates under a trading fund model, and in 2012-13 made a surplus of £98.8 million. Equally remarkable is the fact that, despite such considerable changes being proposed, my local Land Registry has refused to meet me to discuss the issues. I find that truly extraordinary.

In all my years as a Member of Parliament, I have never had an employing body refuse to meet me to discuss what are real concerns for many of my constituents. I was so shocked that I wrote to the Minister in January and pointed out to him that I thought this was an extraordinary course of action being taken by my local Land Registry. I asked him to intervene so that I would be able to attend a meeting to get more information and to raise concerns on behalf of my constituents.

I found the Minister’s response in February even more extraordinary. I will read out what the letter said:

“Some parts of the”—

target operating model—

“may be influenced by the outcome of the Government consultation as the future structure of Land Registry will necessarily affect business planning—and I understand that is why Land Registry does not think a meeting with you to discuss potential impacts on staff at the current time would be productive.”

In other words, it does not want to share its true thinking, or it does not want it to be obvious that there is very little evidence behind the proposals, or it does not want to be clear and open and honest and transparent, as it should be, about what the true impact of the proposed changes will be on my constituents. I think that is extremely bad practice. The Minister should have intervened and ensured that I got a meeting to represent my constituents. I would like to hear a further response from him today to see whether he has reflected further on this issue and come to a different conclusion.

[Jenny Chapman]

I am very disturbed by what my hon. Friend has said. Many of the staff at the Land Registry in her constituency live in my constituency, which is the former constituency of the Minister. I hope that he listens carefully to her remarks and has something positive to add.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has made an excellent point. It is very wrong for any employing body not to be prepared to meet a Member of Parliament, who will obviously raise issues on behalf of their constituents.

The Law Society has stated:

“No detailed evidence is provided to explain how any change to the current model could bring about increased efficiencies or effectiveness to an organisation that currently makes a significant profit.”

The Minister needs to provide evidence to support his proposals, and to address the following issues. If the move to more digital services leads to some job cuts through voluntary redundancy, can the Minister assure me that the Land Registry will continue to have a presence in the north-east, particularly in Durham? Can he explain why the delivery of land registration by a company that would permit

“greater flexibilities to operate around pay, recruitment and possibly provide other services”

would make the Land Registry’s business strategy more achievable? Will the taxpayer be getting value for money from the privatisation? I do not trust this Government to get it right, given their appalling track record on undervaluing Royal Mail. What if the same situation arises again?

In addition, there may be long-term costs to the state and users of the service, which could undermine any sale price. If there are going to be new costs or restrictions on what information businesses, individuals and public sector agencies can access in relation to land programmes, how will that be monitored? No details have been provided as to the precise nature of how any of the options might operate, making it, as we have said many times, difficult to assess accurately the extent to which any new model will work better than the existing one.

I finish with one further question to the Minister. The Land Registry in this country—I wonder whether he is aware of this—has been giving advice to many other countries about how to set up land registry services. We are seen as a model of best practice around the world. I implore him to think very carefully before he severely disrupts a model that has been shown to work so well.