A new low for the News of the World

The revelation that the tabloid hacked Milly Dowler's phone could be a tipping point in the scandal.

The grim news that Milly Dowler's phone was hacked by the News of the World could be a tipping point in the phone hacking scandal. It represents a new low for the tabloid and gives the lie to the claim that only publicity hungry celebrities were targeted.

Not only did private investigators illegally hack Dowler's voice mail, they subsequently deleted messages left on her phone (in order to access more), leading her family to mistakenly believe that she was still alive. As the Guardian notes:

[W]hen her friends and family called again and discovered that her voicemail had been cleared, they concluded that this must have been done by Milly herself and, therefore, that she must still be alive. But she was not. The interference created false hope and extra agony for those who were misled by it.

The tabloid also stands accused of interfering with the course of a police investigation by destroying potentially valuable evidence. Remarkably, Surrey Police chose not to take action against the NoW because this was only "one example of tabloid misbehaviour".

Even Chris Morris couldn't do justice to the fact that all of this coincided with the tabloid's campaign against paedophiles.

It's quite possible that we'll now see a Liverpool-style boycott of the paper across the country. In addition, more will question the government's decision to waive through Murdoch's takeover of BSkyB. As the shadow culture secretary, Ivan Lewis, recently noted: "[T]he current legal framework does not allow serious admissions of criminal conduct by News International to be taken into account when considering Newscorp's acquisition of BSkyB." The question the government will have to answer is why this was the case.

Rebekah Brooks, who was NoW editor at the time, and is now chief executive of News International, has so far managed to remain in her post. But today's developments mean her position looks increasingly untenable.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Land Registry sale puts a quick buck before common sense

Without a publicly-owned Land Registry, property scandals would be much harder to uncover.

Britain’s family silver is all but gone. Sale after sale since the 1970s has stripped the cupboards bare: our only assets remaining are those either deemed to be worth next to nothing, or significantly contribute to the Treasury’s coffers.

A perfect example of the latter is the Land Registry, which ensures we’re able to seamlessly buy and sell property.

This week we learned that London’s St Georges Wharf tower is both underoccupied and largely owned offshore  - an embodiment of the UK’s current housing crisis. Without a publicly-owned Land Registry, this sort of scandal would be much harder to uncover.

On top of its vital public function, it makes the Treasury money: a not-insignificant £36.7m profit in 2014/15.

And yet the government is trying to push through the sale of this valuable asset, closing a consultation on its proposal this week.

As recently as 2014 its sale was blocked by then business secretary Vince Cable. But this time Sajid Javid’s support for private markets means any opposition must come from elsewhere.

And luckily it has: a petition has gathered over 300,000 signatures online and a number of organisations have come out publically against the sale. Voices from the Competition and Markets Authority to the Law Society, as well as unions, We Own It, and my organisation the New Economics Foundation are all united.

What’s united us? A strong and clear case that the sale of the Land Registry makes no sense.

It makes a steady profit and has large cash reserves. It has a dedicated workforce that are modernising the organisation and becoming more efficient, cutting fees by 50 per cent while still delivering a healthy profit. It’s already made efforts to make more data publically available and digitize the physical titles.

Selling it would make a quick buck. But our latest report for We Own It showed that the government would be losing money in just 25 years, based on professional valuations and analysis of past profitability.

And this privatisation is different to past ones, such as British Airways or Telecoms giants BT and Cable and Wireless. Using the Land Registry is not like using a normal service: you can’t choose which Land Registry to use, you use the one and only and pay the list price every time that any title to a property is transacted.

So the Land Registry is a natural monopoly and, as goes the Competition and Market Authority’s main argument, these kinds of services should be publically owned. Handing a monopoly over to a private company in search of profit risks harming consumers – the new owners may simply charge a higher price for the service, or in this case put the data, the Land Registry’s most valuable asset, behind a paywall.

The Law Society says that the Land Registry plays a central role in ensuring property rights in England and Wales, and so we need to ensure that it maintains its integrity and is free from any conflict of interest.

Recent surveys have shown that levels of satisfaction with the service are extremely high. But many of the professional bodies representing those who rely on it, such as the Law Society and estate agents, are extremely sceptical as to whether this trust could be maintained if the institution is sold off.

A sale would be symbolic of the ideological nature of the proposal. Looked at from every angle the sale makes no sense – unless you believe that the state shouldn’t own anything. Seen through this prism and the eyes of those in the Treasury, all the Land Registry amounts to is £1bn that could be used to help close the £72bn deficit before the next election.

In reality it’s worth so much more. It should stay free, open and publically owned.

Duncan McCann is a researcher at the New Economics Foundation