Friday, June 27, 2014
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Land Registry UK - To Be Privatised?
Land-Registry staff on 48-hour strike against privatisation plan
The Land is Ours |
14.05.2014
Today and tommorrow (14-15 May), a 48-hour strike by thousands
of workers at the Land Registry is taking place over plans to privatise
the 150-year-old agency, which is expected to lead to hundreds of job
cuts. Members of the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union have
walked out in 14 locations across England and Wales. The Law Society,
high street solicitors, property search providers and the PCS were among
many to voice opposition to privatisation. PCS and others argue that it
will affect the quality and accuracy of service, the security of data
and force up the cost of the service to the public.
HM Land Registry has been a part of central government since its
creation in 1862, when it was formed to create security of title to
land as an impartial arm of the state (though the modern Land Registry
was re-established out of the Land Registration Act of 1925 and has only
recorded/registered property which has been subject to
market-transactions since that time. This means that land inherited
under title remains unrecorded in the Land Registry).
The Land-Registry makes quasi-judicial decisions on thousands of property transactions on a daily basis, granting title and recording and maintaining the register that contains details including house and land purchases, rights, remortgages and other secured debts.
As a “trading fund” it makes no call on the taxpayer, as it is entirely funded by transaction fees and — because it is so efficient — it is able to pay a sizeable dividend to the Treasury on an annual basis.
For 149 years it was part of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and predecessor departments. In 2013 machinery of government changes moved it to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) under Secretary of State Vince Cable. Within BIS, the Land Registry is under the control of the shareholder executive, which also controls Ordnance Survey, the Met Office and Companies House.
Since the early 1970s the Land Registry has been subject to seven studies into possible privatisation. These studies, undertaken by both Conservative and Labour governments, have each unequivocally concluded that privatisation would be utterly wrong and against the public interest.
The most recent “feasibility study,” however, sought to answer the question “how would you privatise HM Land Registry?” and was carried out following the coalition government’s 2010 comprehensive spending review. The then parent department, MoJ, commissioned the management consultants and well-known privateers KPMG to carry out this study. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPMG
The Land-Registry makes quasi-judicial decisions on thousands of property transactions on a daily basis, granting title and recording and maintaining the register that contains details including house and land purchases, rights, remortgages and other secured debts.
As a “trading fund” it makes no call on the taxpayer, as it is entirely funded by transaction fees and — because it is so efficient — it is able to pay a sizeable dividend to the Treasury on an annual basis.
For 149 years it was part of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and predecessor departments. In 2013 machinery of government changes moved it to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) under Secretary of State Vince Cable. Within BIS, the Land Registry is under the control of the shareholder executive, which also controls Ordnance Survey, the Met Office and Companies House.
Since the early 1970s the Land Registry has been subject to seven studies into possible privatisation. These studies, undertaken by both Conservative and Labour governments, have each unequivocally concluded that privatisation would be utterly wrong and against the public interest.
The most recent “feasibility study,” however, sought to answer the question “how would you privatise HM Land Registry?” and was carried out following the coalition government’s 2010 comprehensive spending review. The then parent department, MoJ, commissioned the management consultants and well-known privateers KPMG to carry out this study. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPMG
Earlier this
year, the Public Service Union's land registry group obtained a copy of
the "feasibility study" written by KPMG - one of the world's largest
audit companies - under a freedom of information request.
Coincidentally, several members of the shareholding executive which
currently run the Land Registry within the BIS come from KPMG, including
its chief Mark Russell..
The minister responsible is Michael Fallon, who was the main mover in government for the botched and ludicrous privatisation of Royal Mail. The PCS claim Fallon has made assurances that the status quo is an option, although this was not clearly stated in the consultation papers. The Law Society, high street solicitors, property search providers and the PCS were among the many voices who have voiced opposition to the notion of privatisation of the Land Registry.
The KPMG report, obtained by PCS under freedom of information,concluded that the best way to privatise the Land Registry would be to firstly vest it into a government-owned company, which — surprise surprise — was one of the options contained within the government consultation, which closed on March 20. The other consultation options included a joint-venture partnership and contracting out almost the entire delivery side of the Land Registry. Each of the options included the retention of a small office of the chief land registrar within government, to deal with statutory elements. This was an unsuccessful attempt to reassure the public and legal profession that state guarantee of title and service levels would be protected.
PCS and others argue that this would affect the quality and accuracy of service and the security of the data they collect and hold. They also argue that concurrent consideration on what Land Registry would look like, including under the government’s “digital by default” strategy, would inevitably force up the cost to the public and potentially put small high street conveyancing firms out of business.
The minister responsible is Michael Fallon, who was the main mover in government for the botched and ludicrous privatisation of Royal Mail. The PCS claim Fallon has made assurances that the status quo is an option, although this was not clearly stated in the consultation papers. The Law Society, high street solicitors, property search providers and the PCS were among the many voices who have voiced opposition to the notion of privatisation of the Land Registry.
The KPMG report, obtained by PCS under freedom of information,concluded that the best way to privatise the Land Registry would be to firstly vest it into a government-owned company, which — surprise surprise — was one of the options contained within the government consultation, which closed on March 20. The other consultation options included a joint-venture partnership and contracting out almost the entire delivery side of the Land Registry. Each of the options included the retention of a small office of the chief land registrar within government, to deal with statutory elements. This was an unsuccessful attempt to reassure the public and legal profession that state guarantee of title and service levels would be protected.
PCS and others argue that this would affect the quality and accuracy of service and the security of the data they collect and hold. They also argue that concurrent consideration on what Land Registry would look like, including under the government’s “digital by default” strategy, would inevitably force up the cost to the public and potentially put small high street conveyancing firms out of business.
Leaked documents show that in a Land Registry board
meeting in March, the board had detailed discussions about the pros and
cons of two types of privatisation under the heading “business
strategy”, appearing to discuss a KPMG presentation on the possibility
of a private sector partner. The meeting did not consider the option of
keeping the registry as a public asset.
Former executives from the body, that registers the ownership of land and property in England and Wales, say that a sell-off “beggars belief” because it will allow the private sector to adjudicate on what can be conflicting interests between sellers, buyers, lenders and neighbours.
KPMG - World's Best Outsourcing Advisors:
In 2011, KPMG was named as the World's Best Outsourcing Advisors, which basically recognizes their skills to help companies get rid of good paying staff positions and farming them out to lower-paying, often questionable companies. KPMG International Cooperative is a Swiss entity. It is the coordinating entity for a global network of independent firms in 146 countries employing 140,000 people. Each KPMG firm is separate and legally distinct. In 2005, KPMG in the United States admitted to criminal wrongdoing and agreed to pay $456 million in fines, restitution and penalties as part of an agreement to defer prosecution of the firm concerning a multi-billion-dollar criminal tax fraud conspiracy.
Alternative Vision for the UK Land Registry:
The PCS Alternative Vision for HM Land Registry makes the case that 'the land register — currently covering what they estimate is around 80 per cent of the land in England and Wales — must be completed to create a quasi Domesday Book for the 21st century'. As mentioned before, the modern Land Registry created out of the Land Registration Act of 1925 has only recorded/registered property which has been subject to market-transactions since that time. This means that land inherited under title remains unrecorded in the Land Registry.
Michael Kavanagh, president of the Public Service Union's land registry group: "This would allow for a proper public debate on land ownership and pave the way for regulation of the planning of land use in the future, something which the Land Registry could carry out for the public good."
(..TLIO would add, so that all land is covered; of course privatisation would make that even more unlikely and information requests no doubt more expensive).
Former executives from the body, that registers the ownership of land and property in England and Wales, say that a sell-off “beggars belief” because it will allow the private sector to adjudicate on what can be conflicting interests between sellers, buyers, lenders and neighbours.
KPMG - World's Best Outsourcing Advisors:
In 2011, KPMG was named as the World's Best Outsourcing Advisors, which basically recognizes their skills to help companies get rid of good paying staff positions and farming them out to lower-paying, often questionable companies. KPMG International Cooperative is a Swiss entity. It is the coordinating entity for a global network of independent firms in 146 countries employing 140,000 people. Each KPMG firm is separate and legally distinct. In 2005, KPMG in the United States admitted to criminal wrongdoing and agreed to pay $456 million in fines, restitution and penalties as part of an agreement to defer prosecution of the firm concerning a multi-billion-dollar criminal tax fraud conspiracy.
Alternative Vision for the UK Land Registry:
The PCS Alternative Vision for HM Land Registry makes the case that 'the land register — currently covering what they estimate is around 80 per cent of the land in England and Wales — must be completed to create a quasi Domesday Book for the 21st century'. As mentioned before, the modern Land Registry created out of the Land Registration Act of 1925 has only recorded/registered property which has been subject to market-transactions since that time. This means that land inherited under title remains unrecorded in the Land Registry.
Michael Kavanagh, president of the Public Service Union's land registry group: "This would allow for a proper public debate on land ownership and pave the way for regulation of the planning of land use in the future, something which the Land Registry could carry out for the public good."
(..TLIO would add, so that all land is covered; of course privatisation would make that even more unlikely and information requests no doubt more expensive).
The Land is Ours
Homepage: http://www.tlio.org.uk/Land-Registry-workers_48-hour_strike/
Homepage: http://www.tlio.org.uk/Land-Registry-workers_48-hour_strike/
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
"The Europe We Would Like To Inherit," refers to the EU as a country!
Atlantic Council "The Europe We Would Like To
Inherit"
by Muddassar Ahmed, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Dustin Dehez,
Spela Kranjc, and Ivo Sobral
How very interesting!
This report actually refers to the EU as a country!
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Agenda 21, Your Life In Their (Communitarian) Hands.
Here is an interesting development.
A new, free e-book is now being promoted at the UK Column,
‘Agenda 21, Your Life in Their Hands’ by Martin Edwards.
I suppose he has tried his best! He has been assisted by a research team of 4 people.
What I find so astonishing about this
book is not what it actually contains but what it has left out. Quite miraculously, all of this is information
has been gathered, with reference to research, educational articles and
documentaries around subjects such as - sustainable development, the
transformation to global governance, ICLEI, smart growth, localism, leadership,
citizenship study programs, without any
reference to communitarianism, Henry Tam, Amitai Etzioni, or Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich and their vast body of Anti Communitarian studies plus their mind-blowing revelation
of how the Hegelian Dialectic tactic is being cynically used to achieve all
this ‘change.’
One good aspect is that Rosa Koire is not referred to
either!
The UK Column is also setting up an ‘Agenda 21 Research
Unit‘ and hopes to soon be producing bi-monthly briefings on this subject. Naturally, I await this development with great
interest.
Sigh!
Saturday, May 31, 2014
MODE 4. The Secret Immigration Policy. More EU Wrecking In Britain.
The secret immigration policy they tried to hide, by Linda Kaucher
While political reporters for the most part ignore the EU, British
domestic policy is actually formulated to fit not just with internal EU
directives, but, importantly, with the EU's external international trade
agenda.
This broader policy affects people's lives here, particularly their
employment and that of their children and grandchildren in the future.
Yet information on this broader picture, the parts of EU trade policy
that will affect people most, is kept from them.
A very relevant and major feature
of EU trade policy is the concession that allows transnational
corporations to bring workers into the EU. In tradespeak this is called
'Mode 4'.
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) defines four modes for
cross-border trade in services: via internet (Mode 1); where the
customer crosses borders e.g. tourism and the international student
market (Mode 2); where a company establishes in another country (Mode
3); and by moving workers across borders (Mode 4).
Moving workers from a lower to a higher socio-economic country is a
very profitable business for the transnational corporations that are in a
position to benefit, on a par with moving production and service work
to cheaper labour areas of the world.
With the WTO Doha deal apparently abandoned, the EU has been
negotiating a set of bilateral and regional trade deals with much of the
world. These deals are more secretive than WTO negotiations, with the
contents of negotiations kept private until those negotiations are
completed.
But investigative work has revealed the urgency of the situation.
The EU is including Mode 4 concessions in all of the deals it is
currently negotiating. In fact Mode 4 is the carrot, to obtain, in
exchange, investment opportunity access into trading partner countries
for transnational financial services corporations, which are for the
most part based in London.
Actually these corporations benefit from both sides of the deals.
They get the investment opportunities but also cheap labour brought in,
and, as this 'reserve army of labour' undermines the power of organised
labour, strengthening the power of capital in its balance of power with
labour.
Although these are EU deals, the UK is the main and willing target
for the Mode 4 concessions. Thus it is UK workers who will pay the
price.
A very important trade deal in this regard is the EU/India Free Trade
Agreement (FTA) that has been under negotiation for four years. It has
been discovered that Mode 4 concessions are the one thing that the
Indian government is demanding. In addition, leaked documentation shows
that the liberalised UK will be taking the bulk of the EU's Mode 4
commitment.
In fact Trade Commission staff have admitted that the EU/India FTA
is, in effect , 85% a UK deal. That's the percentage of the gains which
will accrue to the UK (well, the international financial firms based in
London, anyway) while the UK (UK workers, this time) will get that
percentage of the pain.
Financial services investment opportunities overseas will not produce
jobs here. But workers will be displaced via Mode 4, especially in a
time of cuts. Transnational firms will be able to offer cheap onshore
outsourcing, using cheaper temporary migrant labour and will also be
able to supply labour into other firms allowing them to offload all
employer responsibilities.
Within the supposedly 'capped' UK points based system for labour
migration, the government has ensured that the categories relevant to
trade commitments have no numerical limits. There are no such limits on
the 'intra-corporate transferees (ICTs) category in Tier 2 or on the
'international agreements' category in Tier 5. Neither is there any
resident labour market test, which would stipulate that jobs have to be
offered here first.
In fact both these restrictions are disallowed at the international trade level in respect of Mode 4.
Under the current points based system, skilled workers are currently
being brought in and paid the minimum wage, which is then made up to a
low industry norm with tax-free expenses and with no national insurance
payable. Thus the UK government is even now encouraging the use of a
cheap labour supply that not only displaces workers here but also
damages the national economy in a variety of ways. Wages are repatriated
overseas, the earn/spend cycle needed for recovery is broken, workers
become unemployed and the welfare bill increases, the employment future
for young people is further curtailed, and skills transfer are lost for
the future.
As trade agreements, with Mode 4 included, are committed to hard
international trade law, they become effectively permanent. This is why
this handing of control of UK labour migration to transnational
corporations will affect not only present but future generations. Any
attempt by any future government to pull back on these commitments will
potentially invoke corporate legal action to recover all anticipated
profits that may be negatively affected by the government action.
International financial services corporations based in London are
proactive in directing UK input to EU trade policy via their lobbying
mechanism 'thecityuk' and in Brussels through the European Services
Forum, the mechanism that influences EU institutions directly.
'Thecityuk' is made up of International Financial Services London
(IFSL) and the Corporation of London and the UK Trade and Industry
(UKTI) section of the Business, Innovation and Skills Department is
closely connected. 'Thecityuk''s secretive Liberalisation of Trade in
Services (LOTIS) Committee ensures that UKTI bureaucrats take financial
services' own directives into EU trade policy like carrier pigeons. And
UK governments ensure that domestic regulation is formulated to fit with
this.
The Labour party has not told the UK public about this EU/India
agreement and the centrality of the Mode 4 concessions even though Peter
Mandelson initiated all the current agreements. Neither has the
Conservative/Liberal coalition, even when David Cameron and Vince Cable
led a specific 'trade' delegation to India in 2010. Greens MP Caroline
Lucas spent years as an MEP and a member of the European parliament's
International Trade Committee (INTA) but has declined to warn UK workers
what they are being signed up to, and similarly Ukip, which has two
members on the INTA but actually supports the concept of temporary
labour from outside the EU being brought in by transnational
corporations.
The House of Commons select committee tasked with overseeing the
Department of Business, Innovation and Skills has failed to bring the
Department's role in moving workers into the country into focus and has
accepted the silence of the secretary of state, Cable, on this.
Who will tell the UK public about these irreversible commitments on their behalf?
There is a small light at the end of the tunnel. The Railways,
Maritime and Transport (RMT) union is going to argue to the TUC's
September Congress that it should campaign to alert the UK public to the
implications of the EU/India trade deal and of Mode 4. Yet, as the TUC
has so far been part of the cover-up, it remains to be seen first if
this motion is passed, and then what the TUC does with it. (if anything?!)
Linda Kaucher is a
researcher on international trade. With Masters degrees in Journalism
and in Human Geography, from Australia and the London School of
Economics, and a broad background as an educator, she campaigns to take
the lid off trade secrecy. She has written articles for the Morning Star
and submissions to government consultations. She was invited by the EU Trade Commission to make a presentation to its civil society dialogue on services trade.
“Although
India and the EU are not discussing special visa categories,
the two
countries are
negotiating a numerical quota of approximately 40,000 workers who can enter the
EU for up to 12 months to work in around 25 services sectors, including architectural services, engineering
services, research and development services and computer
and related services.” (note
the way the EU is now referred to as a country, like India!)
taken from:-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)