asked the Minister for Justice (a) whether he is aware of the exceptionally heavy burden which the Land Registration Fee Order, 1944, will place upon the solicitors' profession, and that the substantial increase of fees prescribed is regarded as a tax upon the registered owners of land, which will have the effect of compelling land owners on the grounds of the expense involved to avoid the maintenance of proper titles; (b) whether he will give his reasons for the new scale of fees, which represents increases varying from 300 per cent. to 700 per cent. as compared with the scale under the 1937 Order, S.R. & O., 1937, No. 292; and (c) whether he will state if the Rules Committee of the Incorporated Law Society was consulted before the Order was made.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Registration Fees.
The Local Registration of Title Act, 1891, contemplates that the Land Registry fees shall be fixed so as to produce an annual sum not exceeding the total expenses of maintaining the Registry. On a recent review of the position it was found that the annual expenses amounted to over £40,000, while the annual revenue from fees was under £20,000. It was also found that the Fees Order then in operation not only failed to produce an adequate revenue but that it was not sufficiently detailed and precise, with the result that a good deal of time was wasted in many cases in settling the amounts to be paid in fees. The new Fees Order was made in order to correct these defects. At the same time, the staffing of the Registry was improved, at considerable cost, in order to ensure a better service. The suggestion that the fees, as increased, impose an undue burden is, I think, unfounded. The total revenue expected under the Order is equivalent to what would be realised by charging each registered owner a commuted fee of £1 once in about every ten years as the sole charge for registering his title, issuing his land certificate, recording his various transactions with the land and supplying him with copies of the folio. That can hardly be considered an excessive charge. With reference to part (a) of the question, the Order does not impose any burden on the solicitors' profession. With reference to the percentages mentioned in part (b), the average percentage of increase intended is about 100 per cent. Increases beyond that figure in any particular items are offset by equivalent concessions in other items: such variations have been deliberately made in order to adjust the charges as equitably as possible between the various classes of transactions. With reference to part (c), I do not think that there is any such committee in existence. The other points in the question are, I think, covered by what I have already said. I may add, however, that the position will be reviewed after the Order has been in force for a period which will enable its actual effects to be accurately observed. If it is then found that the fees actually received give a surplus over expenditure the necessary adjustment will be made. Any definite suggestion for altering the incidence of the fees, as between the various classes of transactions, will also receive careful consideration.
Will the Minister not agree that the fees in an ordinary case for the discharge of equities formerly ran from 6/- on a £50 case to £6 on a £3,000 case, while under the new Order the corresponding fees would run from £1 to £13 10s. 0d.? That shows that there is an increase of more than 100 per cent. Is the Minister aware that in a case which occurred recently the fee for transmission on death of a registered owner intestate was £12 6s. 0d. against a former fee of £3; that the fee for transfer by a person to whom the title was transmitted to a third party was also £12 6s. 0d. as against a former fee of £3; and that on an application to discharge equities the present fee is £13 10s. 0d. as against a former fee of 19/6? The total of these fees under the new Order is £38 2s. 0d. as against a former total of £6 19s. 6d.
I should like to remind the Minister that the rate of fees suggested in the question are not in any way exaggerated. In fact, I think Deputy Coogan has understated the case. I think the best way to indicate the manner in which the fees have been increased is to compare the fees in the Land Registry with the fees in the Registry of Deeds. A deed was registered in the Registry of Deeds for 17/6, and on the new scale the same deed in the Land Registry would cost £30 for registration. I would suggest to the Minister that if the Land Registry cannot be run without charging these exorbitant fees, he might consider introducing legislation to transfer the registration of all titles to the Registry of Deeds, and close up the Land Registry altogether.
Is there any fund arising out of these fees, and, if so, is it in credit?
Mr. Boland
As I stated in my answer, these fees were expected to cover the costs of registration. Instead of that, they brought in only something like £20,000, whereas the office cost over £40,000, and it will cost more with the added staff. Is the taxpayer expected to pay the difference?
Adopt Deputy O'Connor's suggestion.
Mr. Boland
As I said at the end of my reply, any definite suggestion for altering the incidence of the fees, or any other suggestion from any part of the House, will certainly be considered.
Will the Minister not admit that the original principle of land registration laid down by Bentham has been violated by his Order? It was never intended as a land tax or that revenue should be derived from registration.
Mr. Boland
And has not been derived. An attempt is being made to balance up. We are getting less than £20,000 and it is costing more than £40,000, and it would mean that the taxpayers have to pay the difference.
Will the Minister say whether there was a substantial fund arising out of these fees some two or three years ago?
Mr. Boland
All I can say is that we are getting in under £20,000 and it is costing over £40,000.
For what year is that the amount?
Mr. Boland
I think that would be the current figure.