asked the Minister for Justice if he has satisfied himself that the scale of charges operated by the Land Registry is appropriate, given the recent increase in property values, and given that a transaction involving a value of £40,000 will be charged for at the same rate as a transaction to the value of £4 million; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Land Registry Charges.
6.
I assume that the question relates to fees for transactions involving conveyances of registered land. As the Deputy is no doubt aware, the Land Registry is required by law to be self-supporting. In deciding on the level of fees required to provide for this, regard is had to the work involved in each particular category of transaction and also to the number of transactions in each category.
There are 18 different categories of fees, 17 of which are fixed rates, ranging from 30 pence to £30, relating to specific transactions. One fee depends on the value of the transaction and can range from £50 to £200, which is the maximum fee payable in any one transaction.
The maximum fee was deliberately set at £200 so that a fee which would be out of proportion to the registration work involved would not be charged for any transaction.
I am satisfied that the level of fees in the Land Registry has been generally satisfactory in achieving as reasonable a relationship as possible with the work involved in each category of case as well as conformity with the statutory need to be self-sufficient. I should add that the current fees are substantially lower in real terms than they were 20 years ago.
Would the Minister not consider redrawing the scale of charges or allowing the Land Registry to do so in the light of the fact that there is a compensation fund which is attached to the Land Registry transactions and which, obviously, is related to the risk involved in each transaction? A sum of £200 is the highest fee that can be charged and that allows for the fact that a transaction involving a figure of £40,000 does not hold the same risk as one involving say, £4 million. Surely the charges should reflect the risk involved to the compensation fund.
That is a matter that will be looked into.
If, as the Minister says, the Land Registry is self-sufficient so that the fees intake covers the cost of administration why is it that additional staff are not taken on in the Land Registry so that transactions can be dealt with and completed within a reasonable time instead of members of the public having to put up with very long delays for many months before transactions are completed?
May I ask the Minister when he is replying to Deputy Taylor if he would agree that the Land Registry is being run at a very substantial profit at a time when the delays are unacceptable because of insufficient staff? Will he apply some of the profit made in the Land Registry in the employment of further staff so that the ordinary man dealing with the Land Registry may get a proper service?
The subject matter of those two supplementaries are for answer by way of separate questions later on in the Order Paper of today and I will deal with them then.
In the light of the Minister's reply that he is not prepared at this stage to review the operation of fees in the Land Registry, what action is he going to take in view of the crisis that exists at present? Does the Minister realise that it is now taking a period of ten weeks to photocopy a map for the registered owner, being a consumer and a member of the public? Is the Minister not further aware that it is taking up to three years to complete an application for a first registration and that a simple transfer of a site in an area where the land had been registered some years ago is taking up to 18 months? Is the Minister prepared to accept that there is a crisis in the Land Registry and having regard to the self-supporting nature of the scheme what is he going to do about it?
If the Deputy based his supplementary on a misunderstanding I apologise to him if I was responsible. I am at present considering the introduction of a new fees order early in 1989 to cover the cost of additional staffing which is due to be assigned to the Land Registry by way of redeployment and increasing costs. Should the Deputy have in mind the appropriateness of the fee for any specific type of transaction I am prepared to have it examined in the context of that exercise.
Deputy McGahon rose.
Order, I think the House will agree we have made very little progress on Questions today. I have spent an undue length of time on the Questions preceding and I want to make a little more progress. There are two Deputies offering and if they will be very brief I will hear them.
Could the Minister address himself to the issue of the automation of the procedures in the Land Registry and say whether an agreement has been reached between the unions and management in the Land Registry to speed up the process?
In a way that is the subject matter of a separate question but I can assure the Deputy that I am very conscious of the position with regard to the procedures and practices within the Land Registry and that the matter is receiving urgent attention at present.
Why did the Minister instruct the Secretary of his Department not to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts recently to answer questions concerning the unnecessary delays occurring within the Land Registry?
If the Deputy wishes to raise that matter I would invite him to put down a relevant question when I shall have the greatest pleasure in dealing with it.