I congratulate Deputy Hanafin on her appointment as Minister of State and wish her well, but I am disappointed that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, is not in the House. The traffic to Caherciveen must be so bad that he got away early.
The Minister's decision to arbitrarily increase Land Registry fees will add further financial pressure to home owners and potential buyers. This little known measure which the Minister invoked on 19 September 1999 will virtually double the costs associated in the purchasing or transferring of property in the housing market.
The proposed fee increases will make a huge difference to the costs associated with purchasing a house to the average home buyer. Already the excessive costs in purchasing property, as seen in the punitive rate of stamp duty and the professional fees involved, are making it virtually impossible for people to purchase a home. The Minister's decision to increase Land Registry fees will make it more difficult for a first time buyer to enter the market. I would like to know from the Minister the reasons behind his decision to impose such a dramatic fee increase. It is worth pointing out that at no stage prior to signing these statutory instruments did the Minister consult the Law Society. Members of the profession were not made aware of the level of registration fee increases being sought or of the new heads of charge until after the fees order was published.
Therefore, the Minister should explain to the House his precise reasons for increasing these charges. Moreover, the imposition of a new set of charges which was part of the statutory instru ment signed last September, will further confuse and complicate an already dated system of conveyancing charges. Will the Minister confirm if the increases in the fees imposed will have a corresponding guarantee of increased staffing at the Land Registry office?
It has been known for quite some time that the huge backlog at the Land Registry is placing considerable inconvenience on purchasers and their solicitors. For solicitors attempting to conclude various transactions, only one hour exists every working day, where they can liaise directly with members of staff at the Land Registry.
There is no longer a maximum fee per transaction in place as a result of the Minister's statutory instrument. Previously this fee was £250 and the following example will highlight the inflationary nature of the Minister's proposals on house purchasers. A property costing more than £40,001 will attract a fee of £300, together with a further fee of £50 if a new folio is to be opened, and a fee of £100 if there is a mortgage. Therefore, the new transaction cost is £450.
As the vast majority of acquisitions are well in excess of £40,000, it is logical to assume that all purchasers, and particularly those at the lower end of the fee scale, will pay a minimum of £450 for a transaction which currently costs £250. Neither the Land Registry nor the Minister can justify this increase of over £200 in the most basic transaction.
While there are many other fee increases attached to the statutory instrument, one which should be exposed, is a new charge of £250 for approving a scheme map for new building estates. This charge will presumably be passed on to purchasers of new houses, together with a further additional charge of £500 or £1,000 should the scheme map have to be revised at a later date. It should be pointed out that the Land Registry does not enjoy semi-State status and is, in effect, an administrative arm of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Minister's right to increase fees, which have not been increased since 1991, should be understood in the context of the primary legislation which was enacted in 1964. That legislation precludes the Minister from increasing fees at the Land Registry in order to provide additional resources. Furthermore, in the most recent report from the Land Registry, it is quite clear that a significant operating profit exists and that such moneys have been siphoned off by the Department of Finance or the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.