- Co-operatives UK
- Who we are
- What we do
- Join Us
- About co-operatives
- Community
- Discussion Groups
- Blogs
- Resources
- Advice and guides
- Annual reports
- Audio
- Blogs
- Board report
- Case studies
- Codes of practice
- Consultations
- Draft reports
- Elections
- Event reports
- Event resources
- Handouts
- Images
- Jobs
- Membership resources
- Minutes
- Policies
- Press releases
- Projects
- Reports and white papers
- Slides
- Speaker biogs
- Surveys
- Think pieces
- Video
- Co-operative Events
- Keep in touch
The New UK Co-op Bill: In Praise of Diversity
Submitted by mjray on 20 January, 2012 - 15:57
Yesterday, Prime Minister David Cameron announced a Co-operatives Bill to consolidate the laws around Co-operative Societies (a subset of Industrial and Provident Societies, I think). This is overdue and very welcome. But some commentators seem to be forgetting that UK co-operatives also have the ability to be co-operative corporations, unlike some other countries. Co-op LLPs, CLGs and CLSs are fairly cheap and quick to register, from between £18 and £40 depending on the type and method. These have the big advantage that it's a level playing field with private corporations and it would be rather difficult to penalise those co-operatives without hurting a lot of private companies as well. Like it or not, private sector lobby groups are currently much more influential than the co-operative sector, so it's good to have them protecting some co-ops. There are three big steps which could be taken to help co-operative corporations in general:
- HM Government should stop prohibiting their job-creation schemes from creating certain types of worker-owners;
- the Registrar of Companies should actually enforce "co-operative" as a sensitive word: only corporations that are members of some co-operative federation should be allowed to use it in their name;
- Co-operative federations should stop discriminating against corporations, both in words (IPSes are not the only co-ops, but you wouldn't realise it from some articles) and fees (it should not cost more to incorporate any type of co-op company than a co-op society).
Do you think there's any chance of any of those three? MJ Ray makes cool Internet stuff with the 10-year-old tech worker co-op called software.coop, among many other things, while travelling between East Anglia and Somerset.
Groups audience:
- mjray's blog
- Log in or register to post comments







Comments
Don't agree with all of point 2
"the Registrar of Companies should actually enforce "co-operative" as a sensitive word" - that would potentially make sense.
"only corporations that are members of some co-operative federation should be allowed to use it in their name" - I completely disagree with that. The test of using the word in the name should be whether or not the organisation has the co-operative principles built into it's structure, not whether it have joined some co-operative federation.
They're two sides of the same
They're two sides of the same thing and I wanted to avoid giving the Registrar the right/responsibility to adjudicate on whether V+P are adequately built into the company structure, especially for things like LLP where the Registrar doesn't usually get to see the full structure. I think that would go against our value of self-responsibility too much.
So, why should co-op federation membership be the same as having V+P built in?
Firstly, if you're a co-op, you should have joined (or started!) some federation, as part of Principle Six. It's actually in the Worker Co-operative Code (point 6.5) and I hope that it's in codes for other types of co-op.
Secondly, if you've joined a co-operative federation, they should have checked that you're really a co-op.
What co-ops refuse to join federations, why and how do they fulfil principle 6?