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.

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.

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).