Vol. 515 No. 6
10 Mr. Noonan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will defer the increases in Land Registry fees and charges pending the employment of adequate additional staff and until such time as there is a major reduction in the time required for processing applications and an improvement in the quality of service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6793/00]
17 Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the consultations, if any, he has had with the Law Society concerning his decision to increase land registration fees and registry of deeds fees from 1 February 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4920/00]
53 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on whether the large increase in fees charged by the Registry of Deeds for the registration of a deed and the proposed increase in the fee charged by the Land Registry for a number of services is justified, particularly having regard to the strong criticism of the service being provided by both bodies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6853/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 17 and 53 together.
I will set out the background to the decision to review the fees for the services provided by the registries. I have approved two new fees orders; one for the Land Registry and the other for the Registry of Deeds. The Registry of Deeds Fees Order took effect from 1 February last and the Land Registry Fees Order will take effect from 1 May next. The orders give effect to a comprehen sive review of the structure of the fees charged for the various services provided by the registries.
As is required by the legislation, the Land Registry fees order has also been approved by the Minister for Finance. Both orders have been designed in order to provide a fair and balanced response to the changes which have taken place in the conveyancing and property markets since the previous orders were introduced as far back as 1991.
The House will be aware that the Government has approved the conversion of the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds to a commercial semi-State body. Apart from the need to respond to changes since 1991, this review of the fees charged by the registries is an essential element in the preparations for this conversion. The new organisation will be expected to operate in a commercial environment and it will be critical to ensure that the fees are set at the correct levels having regard to the costs of providing the services and the need to ensure that the new organisation is placed, at the outset, on a sound commercial and financial footing.
Regarding the size of the increases it should be remembered that, as already pointed out, the existing fees have not been reviewed since 1991. While the overall rate of increase varies, the cost of the most common dealing, the registration of a transfer of property valued at between £40,001 and £200,000, has been increased from £250 to £300 – a 20% rise which is not unreasonable given the period since the previous review.
In line with traditional practice, there has not been any formal consultation with the Law Society. I understand, however, that the society will have been aware from routine discussions with the senior management of the registries that the fees were under review, and was free to make whatever representations it deemed appropriate.
Regarding the Deputy's proposal to defer the implementation of the new orders pending the allocation of additional staff, following discussions with the Department of Finance, additional staffing resources have been approved for the Land Registry. This has been done primarily in order to address the greatly increased number of dealings which have been lodged with the registries due, in the main, to the buoyant market in recent years. It is acknowledged that arising from this, the situation regarding arrears, in particular in the Land Registry, has deteriorated with consequent additional delays for certain types of dealings. This situation is being addressed and I see no basis for deferring the implementation of the fees orders in this context.
I trust that the House will acknowledge that these new fees orders are both necessary and fair. They are being implemented following careful consideration, and on the recommendation of the Interim Board of the Land Registries, whose function it is to advise me regarding the smooth transition of the registries to commercial semi-State status.
(Mayo): What additional staff has the Minister approved?
I cannot indicate the precise number, but I will let the Deputy know. I recently applied for an increase in staff to the Department of Finance and I understand he recently made an approval.
(Mayo): Given the backlog of 66,000—
It is 86,000.
(Mayo): In reply to a parliamentary question I submitted before Christmas I was told it was 66,000. It is now 86,000. Counties Carlow, Kilkenny and Wexford must wait for 65 weeks, while Counties Laois and Tipperary must wait 62 weeks and Counties Mayo and Sligo 60 weeks. That is an appalling record. Given that 16 counties will not have access to a telephone answering service except for one hour every day between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m., does the Minister not have a brass neck to expect people to accept a substantial increase in Land Registry fees before a much better delivery service is made available to clients?
There has not been a review of the fees since 1991, which is a long time ago, and there has been a considerable increase in the price of property since then. There will be a reduction in fees in some instances. For example, the flat fee of £100 has been introduced for the registration charges, as opposed to the previous situation where the fees were based on the amount of the mortgage. Fees for transfers have also been reduced. A transfer of £40,000 in value will now cost £200 and this constitutes a reduction of £50.
With regard to the issue of closing down the telephone line for a period, we have received correspondence from members of the legal profession to the effect that they consider that things have improved considerably since the staff were in a position to become involved solely in the issue of registration over certain periods. The level of delays is unacceptable. I do not pretend that the situation is ideal and I also appreciate the frustrations of solicitors and their clients around the country. We are doing our best to try to resolve it. It is my sincere wish to have the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds on a proper commercial footing as a semi-State agency by the end of 2001.
Does the Minister accept that the figures for arrears of land registration were 86,000 at the end of last year? Does he also accept that it takes up to a year and a half to renew property in some parts of the country? I will not divulge the full litany of the complaints we all have received. No commercial company providing such a dreadful service could dream of increasing its fees. If it was a regulated industry there would be an expectation that there would be a rebate of fees. Will the Minister, therefore, amend his order to ensure that the new fees will not take effect until such time as we have the service he has now promised to the House?
There has not been a review of the fees since 1991. It is now appropriate to hold a review and to implement the new fees orders. The Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds will have to operate on a commercial footing from next year when they receive semi-State status. In the commercial world they will seek market prices to ensure that their business is competitive and that they are able to pay their staff and purchase the necessary equipment.
There is no competition.
They will be competitive in the sense that they will be seen to be efficient and effective.
Does the Minister consider them to be efficient and effective?
Unfortunately there is an insufficiency of resources in the Land Registry to get over the backlog which has arisen as a result of the increase in property transactions in recent years.
Does the Minister consider it right for the Land Registry to increase its fees?
I am trying to resolve that, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that the people involved – the clients and solicitors who are frustrated by the present system – will have their concerns alleviated at the earliest opportunity.
The Minister is putting the cart before the horse. He admits the service is not satisfactory, yet he has increased the fees and has further penalised the punter. Will he concede the effect of these price increases on house price inflation? Does he accept that a site costing £40,000, which is not unusual, will attract a Land Registry fee of £300? If a new folio has to be opened, which will invariably be necessary, a further £50 will be charged while a mortgage will attract an additional fee of £100. This would add a total additional cost of £450 to the building of a house. Where is the Minster's commitment to young couples, if fees of this kind are to be added to a transaction from which the punter received a very bad service? It is penalty tax.
To be fair, I have indicated there will be a flat rate of £100 for mortgages. That will be of assistance. Prior to that the fee was based on value. Deputy Flanagan exaggerates the effect of these fees orders. They pale into insignificance compared to the increases in house prices and the other factors involved in purchasing a house.
Is the Minister suggesting that people are not being exploited enough by these fees?
The Land Registry fee is the lowest fee which people must discharge.
We are seeking that a full and proper service be made available to the public. When does the Minster expect the full telephone inquiry service to be available? It is very restricted at present.
I regret it is a very restricted service. It has arisen because of the huge backlog. There have been curtailments of telephone inquires because we needed the staff to handle dealing. I understand there will be a review at the end of this month. We will then be in a clearer position to state categorically how the Land Registry will proceed on the question of telephone calls. It is the Government's intention to proceed with the legislation to put the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds on a commercial semi-State footing, which will ultimately be to the benefit of the consumer. I understand this has been under consideration for the best part of a decade or more, so it should be welcomed.
(Mayo): Will the Minister indicate the profit made by the Land Registry last year? I understand it was equivalent to that of a highly commercial operation. In the context of the Minister's decentralisation programme, does he not see merit in decentralising the Land Registry so that Land Registry offices strategically positioned in the regions would be able to serve the surrounding catchment areas? I understand there is an office in Waterford. Does he not agree that it would also make sense to locate one in the midlands, the west and the south-west, but I hope not Cahirciveen?
It appears Deputy Higgins believes there should be decentralisation to every town in the country except mine. I do not understand that.
The Minister believes the opposite.
Deputy Flanagan has benefited considerably from decentralisation. We have built a major prison in his constituency, with 515 places, which is more than Deputy Flanagan's party did when in Government.
There is nobody in it.
In any event, rather than going further along that line, an increased level of decentralisation is of course desirable and the Government, through the Minister for Finance, has made it clear that the intention is to decentralise 10,000 public servants throughout the State. The difficulty with further decentralising the Land Registry is that the expertise required by an examiner of titles is very specialised, and people involved in examining titles are very informed in terms of their role. That presents a difficulty if the people concerned do not wish to move. It is not similar to other jobs in the public service where positions can be interchangeable. Experts in the Land Registry are different from ordinary civil servants – I am not in any way denigrating ordinary civil servants, but people have different levels of expertise. It is difficult to train people in the Land Registry and it takes a considerable period of time. I do not think that further decentralisation of the Land Registry would mean a greater level of dealings in a shorter period of time.
So the repopulation of the Blaskets will have to wait a while longer unless Deputy Healy-Rae can force the arm of the Government.
The depopulation of the Blaskets was dealt with very well by Peig Sayers, who wrote a book about it.
