The Economy

Debate between Lilian Greenwood and John McDonnell

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that perhaps one of the reasons why the Government are so anxious not to publish an economic impact assessment of their Brexit proposals is that it would show that our economy will suffer under their hard Brexit, that our public finances will suffer under their hard Brexit and that the promises that they have made about investment in our police, our schools and our health service could not possibly be met under those Brexit proposals?

[John McDonnell]

Although the Government will not publish their economic impact assessment, others have made such assessments and have concluded that a hard Brexit could cripple our economy in the short and long term. We need to have a proper debate in the House to consider the consequences and discuss what amendments can be made to protect our economy.

Land Registry

Debate between Lilian Greenwood and John McDonnell

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I shall be brief, because it is important that everyone should have a say. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) gave a marvellous exposition of the arguments. She should rethink her decision to stand down. The contributions that she has made in the House have always been based on sound common sense, and so was her speech today.

I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group and want to express the view that is coming back from PCS members. The PCS represents 3,000 staff in the Land Registry, and there is a drop-in briefing from half-past 10 to 12 tomorrow in Room W1; those who want to know what PCS members are concerned about should come. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said that he has had only 10 letters this time. He need not worry: we will sort that out for him. There is real anxiety among the professional, highly competent, dedicated and committed staff.

In debates under the previous Government we argued that of course it is open to any Government to review the administration of a service, but that they should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. If a service provides high standards of professionalism, brings income to Government—which is unusual for any Government service—and is respected not just in this country but throughout the world, the last thing to do is destabilise it with rushed or hurried reform. To give the previous Government their due, they carried out an exercise, and exhaustive consultation was carried out over a long period, with staff, the relevant small and medium-sized enterprises, and professional groups. They reached the conclusion that moving to a trading operation was the best way forward.

We expected that there would then be a long period of stability. The last thing that is needed is a continuous round of reform and change, which destabilises an organisation. A professional with a family, whose job is threatened every four years will look for another profession or line of work, and I fear that that is what will happen. The professionals at the Land Registry will look elsewhere, because of the insecurity of their situation, and we shall lose the bedrock of expertise as a result of continual attempts at change—and why?

Everyone has asked the same question; what is the motivation? The service operates effectively, on every premise. It has 98% satisfaction rates. I would love that rating, for myself as an MP, and for any organisation, whether commercial, public or private. Even in the most difficult circumstances, in the trough of recession, the Land Registry still brought money to the Treasury, covering its costs and making a contribution. There was a short period of deficit, but that was overcome as soon as the economy began to lift. The Land Registry has won the respect of every professional body, and there is now an alliance: I am the chair of the Socialist Campaign Group, which is in that alliance with the Law Society and the other groups that are coming forward. That shows the breadth of the support. Yet again, however, an attempt is being made at destabilisation.

What is the motivation? We know what it is. As to the hedging of bets about the various consultation options, I am sorry, but there is one option that the Government want to pursue. It was in the report obtained by the PCS in a freedom of information request: the 2012 KPMG report, which said that the GovCo was the best way forward, to make it possible to move on to full privatisation. My concern is that that is the Government’s motivation; an attempt is being made at full privatisation, which will result in the siphoning off of the profitable areas of the service, job cuts, and the undermining of workers’ conditions of employment. The result of that will be to undermine their professionalism as well. The Government need to come clean about their long-term objectives, because, if they do not, the suspicions will remain. I should rather that they would publicly state that those are their intentions now—to follow the KPMG recommendations for full privatisation. At least then we could have an honest debate. At the moment I do not think that the debate is honest, and as a result suspicion is building. Suspicion leads to lack of confidence in the organisation and further destabilisation.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a passionate plea on behalf of those who are worried about the future of the Land Registry. A concern expressed in response to the consultation is that it will become less accountable to the public. Does not the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) heighten our fears about the Land Registry’s future and its responsiveness to MPs’ and the public’s concerns?

[John McDonnell]

The reason the suspicion of privatisation is so clear in the minds of PCS members is that they cannot get access to information about the Government’s real plans—and nor can Members. When an organisation refuses to have a meeting with a Member of Parliament, just for some dialogue and discussion about their constituency concerns, it undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy. It is a disgrace. I do not know of any other Government organisation that has refused to meet Members, including bodies such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, where there are confidentiality issues. That refusal builds on people’s suspicions that the Government are not coming clean.

There is also suspicion about the point raised by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham)—the short consultation period. Why is it so rushed? Why push it through so rapidly, other than to get to full privatisation before the next general election? That is unacceptable. Everyone is now asking the Government to stand back and carry out a full consultation with staff and the professional bodies that have expressed an interest; and to take into account something that has repeatedly been said—the fact that the staff in question are usually in locations where there is high unemployment and high need.

A range of examples about the impact on local economies came out of the previous consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) mentioned the figure of £10 million. I think that the calculations about Wales made it something like £15 million the last time around. The impact is substantial. It is not acceptable to take a leap into the dark with respect to the organisation and the ramifications for towns and areas. Undertaking a consultation in such a way, in a rush and with the information not fully available to all the interested parties, is not good governance.

I urge the Government to stand back and think again. There are many other places where they can look for major reform, and there are areas worthy of examination, or whose long-term futures need to be discussed, in which Ministers can busy themselves: the Land Registry is not one of them. Why are 150 years of public service about to be thrown out? I think it is because of an ideological commitment to privatisation. I cannot think of any other reason. Any other Department would want to keep the Land Registry in-house because it is such a successful organisation. Any other Minister would be proud to represent such a successful area of work. Privatisation must be the motivation, and that is why PCS members are so anxious. I urge Members to come along to tomorrow’s drop-in meeting to meet the professionals and let them explain what they do, as well as the implications of the threat to their services and their own plans for making the Land Registry even more successful as a public service.