Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 31 Jan 2006

Vol. 613 No. 3

Registration of Deeds and Title Bill 2004 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Ms C. Murphy

I want to focus on three aspects of the Bill, namely, digital mapping, compulsory registration and how easement might be used to deal with the land grabbing that is occurring.

The more mystique that surrounds the issue of property transfer and ownership, the greater control professional practitioners have. Simplifying the registration process must be welcomed. The use of a digital mapping system to advance the electronic conveyancing system is an important component of the Bill. It will hopefully reduce the need to visit personally the Land Registry Office and speed up the legal system around conveyancing, making it more efficient and less costly. Digital mapping is being used by many local authority planning departments, but it can be applied to many other functions as well. It is a very user-friendly system.

Having the capacity to map a property is one issue, but if the ownership is not registered, information will simply not be available to have complete records. In a document it published on the issue, the Law Reform Commission stated:

Arguably that ultimate aim has been in contemplation at least since the Land Registry was established by the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act 1891 ... The 1891 Act was replaced by the Registration of Title Act 1964, and this enshrined the ultimate aim by including specific provisions for extension of the system of compulsory registration, by designating any county or county boroughs as a "compulsory registration area".

The Law Reform Commission informs us that over 30 years later, only three counties have such status. It states:

Notwithstanding the considerable progress which has been made in recent years in computerising the Registry of Deeds records, the fact remains that the system remains governed by the original 1707 Act and later amending Acts ... The case for updating the system remains unanswerable.

What difference will the Bill make to the compulsory registration of title? Section 10 seems less than explicit, seeking to promote and extend the registration. The word "promote" is used, rather than "compulsory". Section 53 specifies the timeframe for registration where compulsory registration applies. The location where it does not apply should, therefore, be the focus of our concern. In this respect the Bill is very disappointing. There was an opportunity to do something much more substantial. We do not need a piece of academic legislation but rather legislation with some definite practical application. With regard to compulsory registration, the Bill achieves very little.

Section 57 amends the 1964 Act to widen the powers conferred by that section to include the granting of lease or easement in respect of property. I want to draw attention to a problem that is occurring where the easement might be sought. Until the 1990s, many local authorities took over housing estates but did not take ownership of the public open spaces. If one goes into the Land Registry Office and checks out estates that are very mature, one will find that the original developer is registered as the owner. The open space was a planning requirement under the Planning and Development Act 1963 and planning permission for the houses would not have been granted without a mandatory open space requirement being fulfilled. The problem is that the land is still registered with the original developer and increasingly, the greedy developers return in an attempt to confiscate the land for the purpose of further development, arguing that higher densities are now allowed. Residents' groups are rightly outraged. Original house purchasers going back 20 or 30 years had understood, from the promotional brochures and from the conditions of the planning permission, that the land was part of the overall development. They have every right to feel very angry with what is occurring. In most cases, the residents maintain the housing estates themselves. They invest in grass cutting machines, they plant flower-beds, erect signs and so on, yet then they discover a notice at the end of the road stating that an application has gone into the local authority to build an apartment block or a car park or extra houses on the open space in their housing estate.

The open space was designed as an amenity. The only way to establish formally that amenity at this stage is an easement. Section 10 of the Bill suggests that a new authority may undertake research projects relating to the registration of land. The problem I have outlined needs urgent attention. This might prove a useful area for some of the research, instead of having courts clogged up by cases from resident groups which are forced to take action. This is a matter not confined to one county. I understand that many counties are experiencing a similar problem.

The property registration authority will have a co-ordinating role and that is to be welcomed. The fact that matters are to be simplified is welcome, especially the digital mapping. There are flaws in the Bill, but perhaps these can be amended on Committee Stage.

Mr. O’Connor

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this business. I welcome the presence of my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

He is a survivor from Galway West.

Mr. O’Connor

Galway West is a lovely place to visit. I am happier in Tallaght, however.

My first reaction on reading through this Bill was to think of that famous scene in the movie, "Chinatown", where the private detective played by Jack Nicholson is in the Los Angeles hall of records investigating bogus land deals. He rips out the page of a registry of land sale transaction. I am not suggesting that such deeds occur in this jurisdiction, but it is an interesting point. The Bill will remove the possibility of anyone in this country emulating Jack Nicholson in the future.

The Bill provides a statutory basis for the registration of titles and deeds on computer in the Registry of Deeds and the Land Registry. It also provides for an electronic mapping system as part of the process of introducing an electronic conveyancing system. It is interesting to note that this involves the repeal of legislation dating back, in some cases, to 1707. It is also interesting to note that a primary objective of the 1707 Act was the prevention of forgeries. That certainly puts a different light on the term "the good old days".

When most of us reflect on areas such as the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds in the early 18th century, it conjures up clerks in wigs sitting on three-legged stools making entries in musty leather-bound ledgers with quill pens. Much of the activity in this area still reminds of us of those far-off days. It is good to see, therefore, that his Bill provides for the movement of the key areas of registration of deeds and title into the 21st century. Now it will be possible for the definition of a deed to include a reference to information stored in electronic form or, as it is also described, a non-legible form. This is capable of being converted into a legible form. This should greatly facilitate officials and members of the public in searches for records kept by the registry and more immediate access to records through electronic means.

Electronic registration and storage of information in regard to the Registry of Deeds and the Land Registry will help to make the process easier and faster, and consequently more economical. Not many people could read or write in 1707, not even those who could afford to buy land and property. Those who could draft deeds and entries in leather-bound ledgers were looked on as whizz-kids in their day. We have to move with the times and the electronic storage and retrieval of information is the way we are going. The computer is today's ledger and the computer mouse is today's quill pen.

I speak as someone who has always been brave enough to admit that in terms of modern technology I am still a child of the past. However, I am doing my best. I often get queries about Land Registry issues and matters that relate to this legislation, although not every week. In a busy urban constituency office and clinic, one deals with all types of problems, not many of which relate to this matter the House has in hand. However, I get sufficient queries in this area to appreciate that there is a need for modernisation. It is good that we are looking at this issue and I wish the Minister of State well in that regard.

Effective and efficient property regulation structures and systems are essential requirements for a successful economy. Even those who want to be in government and have to battle on for another 500 days will know that the economy is thriving.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Where is the evidence?

Mr. O’Connor

People are working and the economic climate is good — even Deputy Jim O'Keeffe knows that. I will take him on some other day when I do not have a cold. It will be a long, hard 500 days and I am fit and well for the battle. I hope the Deputy can keep up with it.

Registration of ownership of land confirms and underpins the owner's right to use and enjoy it. It is necessary, for example, to demonstrate good title to sell or transfer land, whether the owner is trading up or whatever. That is important, irrespective or whether the owner is a private individual or a business enterprise.

Having good title to land allows an owner to make use of the assets to borrow funds, which, in the case of a company, may be needed to launch or expand a business enterprise or diversify into another area of commercial activity. In the case of private individuals remortgaging may be undertaken to extend the home or assist a family member in gaining a foothold on the property ladder. Looked at from that perspective, it is clear that effective land registration should have the capacity to contribute in a meaningful way to enterprise and economic activity.

Efficient registration systems, that is, those in which procedures are straightforward, delays are avoided and costs are kept to a minimum, also have the capacity to enhance national competitiveness by making the country a more attractive investment location within the international community. It is interesting that the World Bank again drew attention recently to the need for sound property registration systems as a means of improving the economic climate and enhancing business activity. The mains aim of the Bill is to restructure and modernise land registration structures in the State, update and streamline the law relating to registration deeds and reform the law relating to the registration of title to land.

The new property registration authority will be a statutory body with a representative board along the lines of the existing Courts Service. I am glad to note that the Minister's intention is that the composition of the new authority will bring stakeholder expertise to bear in the discharge of its functions. I understand that the new structure is intended to facilitate stakeholder involvement in the strategic management and modernisation of registry services, provide channels of knowledge and, indeed, feedback from the conveyancing and property sectors, leading to increased responsiveness to customer needs, which is very important, and ensuring quality customer services. It will make commercial and business expertise available to the new authority to ensure cost effectiveness in the provision of services. It is also intended to facilitate staff representation to ensure staff participation in the management of change within the new organisation, while increasing the visibility and profile of the property registration services.

While there will always be criticism of this business, it is good that we are modernising the system and dealing appropriately with the Registration of Deeds and Title Bill. I wish the Minister well in that regard and I look forward to supporting the Bill. I am happy to concede to my colleague, Deputy Fiona O'Malley.

Ms F. O’Malley

I welcome this Bill. It tidies and updates our legislation, which is always important. A matter which might arise on Committee Stage is that it is becoming increasingly obvious that local authorities have not secured title to particular pieces of land. What provisions are in the Bill to secure such titles, which everybody for many years, including the local authorities, assumed were vested in the local authorities? There is an ongoing case in Leopardstown in my constituency. More recently a similar type of issue arose in Dublin city centre with regard to Dartmouth Square, although I am not sure if the circumstances are the same.

In Leopardstown and throughout the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown local authority area there are many sites where title was not secured. How can we streamline matters for local authorities, in the public interest, to ensure that lands intended to be ceded were, in fact, ceded? Will there be an opportunity to discuss this on Committee Stage? I was anxious to mention this matter on Second Stage so we might be able to deal with it on Committee Stage. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Boyle

This Bill is welcome, partly because of the need to upgrade administration but also because the availability of technology requires legislation such as this. If I have a criticism of the Government's policy in this area it is that it has chosen, once again, to opt for a narrow reform rather than for wider reform of the legislation regarding property. Last Tuesday, in the National Library, the Taoiseach launched the tenth report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. What happened to the ninth report of that committee? That was launched with great fanfare a number of years ago but we have not seen a single legislative proposal from the Government to enact any of its recommendations.

There has been a gradual improvement in all aspects of the registration of land and public access to information on same. However, it remains an imperfect practice. The current Land Registry based in Waterford was an early example of the Government's so-called decentralisation programme but all it did was make it difficult for people in the rest of the country to access information that would have been available in Dublin. It was just located to a new centre. I hope the new body being established under this Bill will not suffer from the same geographical problems but will increase the amount of information that might be available to the public.

Other contributors to this debate have mentioned that we could have used the Bill to strengthen the Derelict Sites Act, which gives local authorities some powers, after a great deal of time and searching for the owners of derelict properties, to acquire title to such sites. However, we should go further. If an owner does not become available within a set time period, such properties should automatically be vested in the local authority. This would apply to properties which are obviously derelict, regardless of whether they are built upon, and have the effect of downgrading a local community.

Such legislation should exist. It exists in the United States where an investigation regarding the rights and responsibilities of property owners can be instigated not so much by a local or state authority or the national government but by individual members of the public. Why are we not legislating to provide that members of the public can get information on who owns and is responsible for a particular property in their community, particularly if that property is a building that is not structurally sound or is a vacant site which has been allowed to become littered and a stain on the area? On these grounds we can go much further in terms of the law on property. I am disappointed the Government and the Minister appear to have made no effort to act upon the recommendations in the ninth report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution and, given the Government's legislative programme, there is little likelihood that such legislation will be in place by the next general election.

Given the opportunity presented by this new organisation and technology that will allow the identification of property to become easier, there should be standardisation of property leases. Attempts have been made in the past to do this through Private Members' legislation. The lease on my house, as is the case for most people here, is written in very arcane language. It refers to the property being located in the geographical area identified by the local parish, which was the parish of the established church, the Church of Ireland. There is an inconsistency, first, in the language used in leases, which should be a little more user friendly and, second, in the geographical terms by which property is identified. This Bill could have been an opportunity to address this. Perhaps the new organisation, when it is up and running will put such changes into effect.

Last night I attended a meeting in the town of Ballincollig in my constituency, although it will no longer be part of my constituency at the next election due to boundary changes. That meeting highlighted a particular difficulty regarding State ownership of property and the transfer of such property to community interests. The meeting was organised by the Ballincollig soccer club which had been promised four years ago, by the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, that it would be given an area of ground for sports and amenity purposes as part of the development resulting from the sale of Murphy Barracks in Ballincollig.

Most of the ground was to be made available on the open market to commercial interests. The land was subsequently sold and has been developed but the amenity area is still undeveloped. There is now a landlocked section of property which cannot be accessed because the planning authority made a mess of how access was to be provided. The biggest problem, however, is the question of the title. I understand this issue is currently being dealt with by the Chief State Solicitor's office and I hope it comes to a proper conclusion.

What I and the attendance at the meeting last night find frustrating is how, in transferring State property to these interests, such a double standard applied. Why were the commercial interests, so obviously and quickly looked after? Why were the community interests treated so shoddily? Many of the difficulties brought up regarding title are used as unnecessary obstacles but these obstacles seem to be easily overcome when commercial development is involved. It is a double standard that State agencies should no longer apply.

The Green Party will not oppose this legislation. We believe it is necessary. However, perhaps the Minister will address the need for wider ranging legislation on property and property rights, the need to develop, in the public interest, properties and pieces of land of which the current owners are not making proper use and the need for mechanisms to allow State authorities, particularly local authorities, to secure the better use of such property. Representing a largely urban constituency, I can identify many such properties which current legislation does not allow the local authority to acquire and develop as quickly as is necessary. This legislation might have been an opportunity to push that agenda a little further. If the new agency uses the powers being conferred on it in terms of defining property and improving the availability of information on property, that is a good thing. There is much further to travel in terms of legislation that better meets the needs of our community and individual citizens.

Mr. J. Breen

I welcome the introduction of this long overdue legislation. Review and reform of the system of registration of title is badly needed. Conveyancing and land and property law here are complex and archaic. It is important that our systems are brought up to date in a coherent manner.

According to the Minister, the programme of reform has three stated aims. It proposes to simplify the law in this verbose and confusing area and to make it more easily understandable to both legal practitioners and the public. It also proposes to update the law in this area in the light of changes in social demographic and economic needs and to make conveyancing easier and faster, thereby reducing the sometimes enormous costs associated with the legal service. I hope the Minister succeeds in this, that the process will be easier to understand and that costs of procedures will be reduced.

The legislation will benefit many people, in particular young people trying to buy their first home or new house. They are well acquainted with the substantial costs associated with such a move, not least of which are solicitors' and professional fees. Measured on the recommended scale, these fees are 1% of the total price plus €100. The main outlays are stamp duty, Land Registry fees and fees for searches. However, there is also normally a charge for miscellaneous outlays such as telephone, posters and photocopying. It is important people are treated fairly in this area and I welcome controls that will facilitate this. There is enough pressure on young people today without adding more through the current outdated and complicated system which places a heavy burden on them in terms of cost and time.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill for electronic conveyancing as the conveyancing process is unduly costly and time consuming. Conveyancing practice is, undoubtedly, protected and evidence suggests that it takes a great deal longer than it should or does in other European countries. The one to two-month period involved in the process of buying a house in this country should be reduced and I welcome any measures that bring new efficiency to the process to bring it in line with our counterparts in Europe, especially in this age of technology and instant monetary transfers.

Up to now, solicitors have had a monopoly in conveyancing. Our cumbersome legislation added to their ability to retain that monopoly. It also allowed them to stall and delay in order to charge higher fees, or perhaps this was general incompetence. These delays served to place additional burdens on members of the public who were, for the most part, unable to do anything to speed up the process. Solicitors must realise that their survival may depend on whether they modernise and become more responsible and accessible to a more demanding public. Many firms depend on conveyancing and it forms a significant element of their business.

As the Land Registry becomes more effective in marketing its on-line service, legislation is amended to simplify transactions and becomes more understandable, and consumers become more familiar with on-line transactions, the demand for solicitors will lessen unless they modernise, change their attitude and realise that if they cannot provide a more professional efficient service, consumers will work around them. If they continue as they are, the logjam in the registration system will remain, at least in the short term.

I have some reservations about the Bill and the process of its implementation. Will the Minister indicate how this legislation, if passed, will progress as there appears to be little or no funding in place to progress it? There is not much sense in passing a Bill and not providing funding to operate it. This will be expensive legislation. How will we compulsorily register all land in the country currently not registered unless staff and a proper registration authority are in place in every county? We can talk forever about electronic conveyancing, but if land is not registered, we have no land to convey through electronic conveyancing. The starting point is registration. How can we get the land registered if we do not provide extra staff? Without them the authority will exist as a quango and will not get the work done. It is important the Minister takes on the task of seeing this legislation through to implementation and that he does not allow it to sit on some shelf gathering dust.

I compliment the staff of the Land Registry office. Complex deals that take up considerable time pass through that office and something should be done in this regard, particularly where land is held by different owners. When all but one of the owners have passed away, there should be a provision in place to ensure that owner can acquire the property more quickly. That is not happening and I ask the Minister to examine that situation.

Mr. M. Brady

I welcome this important and long overdue legislation. Many of the procedures involved are archaic. I wish to address this issue from the point of view of modern needs and as a person with a special interest in history. It is obvious we need an efficient and less cumbersome form of legislation.

In light of the amount of business currently being transacted, one does not need props to support solicitors' earnings. If we want to be competitive in the modern world, we must find more efficient ways of dealing with these issues. I look forward to the other pieces of the jigsaw such as the electronic conveyancing referred to by Deputy James Breen and promised in this legislation.

Our Land Registry deeds are an historical treasure trove in terms of our social history. They are a bit like the Land Commission records which are not yet generally accessible. These documents can be used to illuminate political and social history. As we move into the electronic age, it is important that these ancient deeds are properly preserved and made accessible. It would be a long-term project to have these documents recorded in electronic form so that they can be more easily consulted, but this is something to which we should aspire. The Minister and his officials are focused on the needs of a modern economy, and rightly so. However, I urge him to ensure that the heritage aspects are properly scrutinised and looked after.

I welcome the Bill because it is a decisive step to take the legislation into the 21st century and it will make information more accessible to citizens, especially with regard to Government matters. The administration of the Land Registry should be as simple as possible given the importance of property and land. It is something that has been difficult over the years, which may be understandable. It is difficult because it is a paper-based system. This is the ideal opportunity to move from that system to a new one. It must be difficult to transfer property unless we use technology or some other expensive system. What the Minister has promised to do will make the conveyancing of property much less expensive, as long as we negotiate with lawyers and others who have made the process costly.

The Land Registry is an important element of this State. It was established in 1707 and my experience of dealing with it as a public representative has been positive. It is efficient, effective and thorough. There is no point in speeding up a process while overlooking the fact that somebody has a legal right to a property. The process is detailed and important because property is valuable. An example of a case I dealt with involved a lady who bought a house from her brother-in-law, who was not registered with the Land Registry. The people from whom her brother-in-law bought the property were not registered, nor were the people from whom they bought it. The whole chain of unregistered ownership extended back to 1934. To have the issue resolved, the woman must ascertain whether all the people who benefited from that land still have a claim on it. It is a very detailed process and people do not understand its importance.

In other recent cases with which I dealt, I found the Registrar of Titles to be most helpful. Like Deputy James Breen, I get in touch with the Land Registry on behalf of constituents and I find that the staff are very helpful, co-operative, efficient and fast. If one goes into the office, one can get a map quickly and the courteous and helpful staff will assist with the identification of the property concerned.

The office is an open-plan office, not a box in a corner of the room. It is a client-based, user-friendly service. When the new facilities are provided, it will be important to have similar facilities in Roscommon when the new building is opened there.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, for whom I have great admiration and who is a very efficient Minister, has a great grasp of the legal needs of his Department and I thank him for introducing this important legislation.

Property is now very valuable and the question of church property is also important because it is no longer exempt. Many old church properties, in particular those of the Church of Ireland with their small cemeteries, have been left without real ownership. The proper registration and acquisition of titles by local authorities is important. However, there is still much to be done. One must still physically send title deeds to the Land Registry. One can do so by post although I know many prefer to go into the office. That is how the Irish like to do their business. When they go into the office, people know the deeds will arrive on the day and they can get a dealing number there and then. We must aim for the type of scenario envisaged by the Minister. Ultimately, one should be able to transfer property and send one's deed to the Land Registry electronically.

The investment the Minister has made with regard to digital mapping is very welcome. Currently, it takes a long time to have transactions registered and there are often delays in terms of mapping. Hopefully the digital mapping initiative will improve matters. South Dublin County Council, for example, made its services available electronically although this initially seemed difficult. It put its entire planning application system on-line so that one can look up every plan, map and specification. The council achieved this within a very short period and I compliment it on its initiative. Before this, one had to go to the planning counter in South Dublin County Council to get maps, the office was only open during certain hours and the whole process took much time. The service is now available on the Internet. This type of initiative is needed with regard to the Land Registry in that one should be able to do everything on-line. It would improve our system of conveyancing and put an end to complaints regarding long delays, searches and so forth.

The main gap in the legislation relates to the encouragement of first registration. I like the idea that the title is tidied up, registered with the Land Registry and is very clear and certain. I realise that solicitors find the system of first registration very daunting and therefore do not use it. They will go to the Registry of Deeds instead although first registration is much cheaper. The Land Registry could take measures in this regard. Searches can be daunting and if one gets them wrong, one must start all over again and go through the whole process. Verified searches are also required. They are not required for other transactions and are costly and cumbersome.

The Land Registry must examine what it requires with regard to first registration. It could intervene in terms of the required searches to make matters easier for solicitors. One should ask why it needs verified searches? Surely the Land Registry could check them rather than requiring the solicitor to get a verified search. Staff should be designated to promote the first registration system and assist people in getting through it. This will help increase the number of titles registered.

The compulsory registration system should be extended. I have my doubts in that it might be too much to ask that all land in the State be compulsorily registered. Forcing the issue will make people register but will require the help of the legal profession. The Registry of Deeds and the Land Registry should also consider free first registration. The Land Registry system is more expensive than the Registry of Deeds system. If they integrate, the two bodies should consider balancing their fees to make it more attractive to register with the Land Registry.

I would like to address the time limits with regard to the stamping of deeds and the penalties incurred if a deed is not stamped within a month. One month is probably too short a period within which to stamp a deed. However, we must consider the issue of time limits with regard to land registration. There should be a time limit and it would be good to have a requirement to register within a certain time. As it stands, some titles are not registered for ten years or more, and some are not registered until someone discovers the fact. A time limit should be considered but it should be a very reasonable one.

I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister again for his comprehensive explanation of its contents and other legislation that will come before us in the relatively near future. I liked the Minister's overview and description of the old Registry of Deeds office and all that is contained in it.

It has become commonplace for people to criticise our land law because of its complexity but such criticism is entirely justified. Land law is frequently referred to as being draconian, and that criticism is easily justified. The law that governs property rights dates back centuries, as the Minister stated. We did not need the Law Reform Commission to inform us that such law is outdated and needs to be changed. We have had Law Reform Commission reports but little has changed to date. I welcome this Bill as a first step in the process of change.

The complexity of property law is made even worse by the rituals that have grown up over the same period in land transactions. Anyone who is fortunate enough to own his or her own home will know that, at the very least, it takes up to six weeks to go through the rituals of buying one's home. In the modern age of technology where past transactions, old deeds and contracts are available electronically, I cannot understand why people should be dragged through this process any longer. The Minister explained that in other jurisdictions the process involved takes only 14 or 15 days compared to six or seven weeks in this jurisdiction. We should aim for the process to be completed in that shorter timeframe, and the Bill will help in that respect.

In the interests of the consumer, we need to examine more closely the processes and checks that are said to be involved in conveyancing. Are all these checks necessary and are they being carried out? When an 80 year old house is changing hands, why does the chain of title need to be validated again and again? Do repetitive processes such as this in the conveyancing process serve any purpose? These are some of the issues I want to raise.

In this context, I am pleased the Minister has taken steps to simplify matters in this area. However, as we agree, this Bill is only one small step. There is a large element of repeal and re-enactment in the Bill. It is not all new material, as the Minister has informed us, and the Bill will pave the way for the storage of deeds and maps on computer. That is very welcome but we need to stop being content with playing catch-up. We need to look ahead and bring forward legislation that will facilitate the greatest possible use of the technology available to us.

I would much prefer if today we were in a position where electronic conveyancing was the norm and buying and selling a house involved a far more simple and straightforward process. Even after the enactment of this Bill, we will still have two distinct and different systems of land registration — the Registry of Deeds on the one hand and the Land Registry on the other. If we are serious about simplifying conveyancing, we should have one uniform system. I am glad the Minister announced that one such uniform system, which is essential, will be included in this Bill.

I listened with interest to Professor John Wylie, one of the foremost authorities on this subject, at a recent meeting of an Oireachtas joint committee. He stated:

It is really absurd, when the State has been independent for . . . 80 years, that we still have a ... land conveyancing which is based . . . [on] old English feudal law. It is ridiculous in this day and age, when our lives are ruled more and more by computers that our conveyancing system is still based on the age of the quill pen and ink.

That is the manner in which the Minister described the office of the Registry of Deeds. I agree that those in the registry have done and continue to do excellent work but we must move forward with the times, as Professor Wylie recently explained to the committee.

If we are to make substantial progress in this area, there must be a strategy for getting all titles into the Land Registry. This has been done in England where a strategy was devised and now approximately 99% of the landbank of England and Wales is on the register in the Land Registry. We should aim to do likewise in this country.

I compliment the Law Reform Commission and the officials in the Minister's Department who work on the area of land reform. It is of paramount importance that they are given whatever resources are necessary to speed up and modernise land and conveyancing law.

The Bill provides for the replacement of old legislation dealing with the Registry of Deeds dating back to 1707, or Queen Anne's time. It will put the Registry of Deeds on a sound footing and it makes sense to make certain changes to the Registration of Title Act 1964 with a view to making electronic conveyancing a reality.

Deputy James Breen referred to stamp duty, which is an issue raised regularly by residents in my constituency. Where parents are living in the family home after the children have left and want to trade down and buy a less expensive house, they must pay stamp duty again, having paid it on their original home. At the same time, the person buying the house from them must also pay stamp duty. The Government is getting stamp duty on the double. I have asked the Minister to examine this issue because the system is unfair. People are being taxed twice.

I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to the implementation of the changes envisaged in it.

Mr. Ring

I hope the Land Registry Office will soon be located in Roscommon, which has been promised for many years. My late father told me that during every election campaign — Deputy Brady will be glad to hear this — Fianna Fáil would always promise the people of Ballina that the biscuit factory would be located there.

Mr. M. Brady

They must be fond of biscuits in Ballina.

Mr. Ring

We got the biscuits but we never got the factory. Similarly, the Land Registry has been coming to Roscommon for a long time. While I am not confident, I hope it is a part of decentralisation that will happen soon.

I am glad the Minister is at last reforming the Land Registry. The people are paying for the service through stamp duty and direct taxation but when they want to obtain title deeds or get their property registered and there is a problem, they may have to wait up to four years as the Land Registry has a long waiting list. The staff of the Land Registry do an excellent job in difficult circumstances. There is no point establishing a new agency if we do not intend to provide the necessary resources and staff. What happens in the Land Registry is a disgrace. I do not know how the staff have tolerated it and why they have not gone on strike. They work under terrible conditions, which is not right. I am glad the Minister is reforming the office as it is time to do so.

People and their property must be protected. They must know when they register their title that it is for life. A constituent of mine had a right of way through her property. When she planned to do some building on her property, she checked and found that a certain person — I must be careful what I say in this regard — had registered the property and taken away the right of way. I told my constituent to go to her solicitor and that she should put the matter in writing immediately. An investigation took place but nobody knows to this day who registered the property. My constituent had it re-registered in her name, for which I am glad, but the problem should not have arisen. I will make no further comment on the matter except to say that a layman could not have done what was done. The Minister can read between the lines. However, my constituent won her case and got her property back, although the case may yet take a further step. The Land Registry found that the property had been re-registered, although it could not find out who had done so. I hope that whatever equipment is installed as part of the current reform will ensure that such an incident can never occur again.

Great difficulty has arisen in getting local authority affordable housing property registered. It is time action was taken in this regard. Residents are entering into contracts and agreements with local authorities but the process is being held up because the property is not registered in the Land Registry. This should be dealt with more quickly so that residents do not have to wait.

This reminds me of the situation when local authorities began selling local authority houses. When a local authority house is to be sold, a valuation is made of the property and the tenants are offered the opportunity to buy. In the Mayo County Council area, if that offer is not taken up within six months, the house is revalued. Last year, a couple in my area had their house valued and agreed to buy. However, their solicitor found that the local authority had not registered the property with the Land Registry and the deal could not proceed. After approximately nine months had elapsed, the property had to be revalued by the local auctioneer, who increased the price by 37%. This problem is now to be dealt with in that there will be an independent valuation authority to deal with such cases. However, my point is that if the local authority had done its work in the first instance by registering the property, the problem would not have arisen.

The deeds for many properties came from the Land Commission. I do not understand why one Government agency cannot pass information to another. If a person is looking for a land certificate from the Land Commission, it can take five or six years to get it from the Department of Agriculture and Food, which should not be the case. The people involved are citizens who pay their taxes. They are looking for what is theirs, yet they must wait for the information to be passed from one agency to another. It is not good enough.

The staff of the Land Registry have worked in very difficult circumstances. If a problem arises, they try to deal with it, especially in sad circumstances.

When the new agency is established, will it be accountable to the Dáil? Will Deputies be able to table questions on the new agency or will it be like the National Roads Authority or the Health Service Executive in that we will table questions and the Minister will reply that he has no responsibility in the matter? This will result in nobody's business being nobody's business. The matter will be taken out of politicians' hands but they will take the blame when their constituents come to them looking for answers. We will not be able to call those responsible to account even though the people elected us to represent them in this House and bring forward legislation.

I hope something will be put in place to allow Members to table questions about problems with the Land Registry without them being ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle or Leas-Cheann Comhairle on the basis that the Minister is not responsible for the matter. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is responsible for this matter. The Land Registry should be under the control of the Houses of the Oireachtas or, at the very least, Members should be permitted to table questions. Powers should not be taken away from Members in respect of this issue. Members can at least table questions at present and receive answers. They can put pressure on the Department of Agriculture and Food to hand over its documentation to the Land Registry if it must be handed over. If we did not have this facility, it would be catastrophic for the people.

The time has come for us to modernise the Land Registry to ensure that it does not take two or three years for the sale of a house to be registered. It should be carried out quickly. Currently, solicitors blame the Land Registry while the Land Registry blames the solicitors, but it is the person buying the house who feels the pressure. These people who are frustrated with the Land Registry and solicitors have only the politicians to whom to turn to sort out their problems. The process should be more open. Solicitors should be forthcoming about the date they send details to the Land Registry and the dealing number. The Land Registry should confirm when it receives the documentation and issue a date for the processing of the case.

Unfortunately, it is akin to the national lottery at present. Documentation is sent to the Land Registry with no guarantee when it will be dealt with. A buyer can get the sale registered quickly or he or she could wait years for it to be registered. In my former career as an auctioneer, I dreaded hearing that a problem with title had arisen with a property whose sale I was handling. I knew that I would not complete the deal and would not be paid for two or three years because problems would arise when it was sent to the Land Registry.

We should modernise the Land Registry but we should give it the resources, staff and equipment it needs. I hope this Bill will not lead to the matter being dispensed with so that politicians will no longer be able to table questions in the Dáil in respect of the registry. I want to put on the record that people are frustrated with the public service. If the Minister of State rings any Health Service Executive area tomorrow morning looking for information, he will find that the newest member of staff in every HSE area is the message minder. The same scenario arises in county councils and Government agencies. It will probably be the last time the Minister of State hears from anyone in that HSE area.

I rang the Department of Social and Family Affairs and discovered that any caller would need a degree in using a telephone to get through to the person to whom he or she wanted to talk. A caller is first given a number. He or she rings that number, is asked for a particular number and is then transferred to another line. The same situation arises with county councils. It is not possible to contact a member of staff. One's call is diverted——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is drifting away from the Bill.

Mr. Ring

I may be drifting away from the Bill but I am not drifting away from its principle which is that the people of this country are frustrated with the Civil Service for which they are paying good money. They cannot get through to the Land Registry, HSE or county councils. They are asking us, as politicians, what we are doing about this. Whatever system is established needs something for the customers. If they ring the Land Registry, they should be able to talk to someone who will answer their questions and give them the necessary information instead of being diverted to message minders.

The Land Registry should be modernised quickly. I do not want to see a situation arise like that which has arisen in the health service or the county councils with the introduction of another layer of bureaucracy but no improvement in services. If this happens, we will have failed again as we have failed repeatedly over recent years. We are very good at creating jobs and introducing legislation but they do not appear to improve the service to the public. People are becoming angry and frustrated with State services and it will not be long before they take to the streets to express this anger and frustration very sharply. Very busy people pay good money for services but cannot get answers from either their solicitors, the Land Registry, the HSE or anyone else. I hope this Bill will work and bring about a modern Land Registry to enable people to know that their business will be completed in a very short period.

Mr. Connolly

Electronic conveyancing is a major step into the future and is this Bill's ultimate aim. The legislation proposes to computerise the registration of titles and deeds in the Land Registry preparatory to Ireland adopting electronic conveyancing, as many countries have done. We know cases where people have gone abroad and returned within a few days, having purchased a property abroad after going through all the legal channels, sorting out their mortgage and signing off on the entire transaction. It is time to change the way such matters are dealt with in Ireland and this Bill is possibly part of such a change.

The manner of bearing witness to land transactions has evolved through the ages. We have moved from the feudal symbolism of seizing, with its clods of earth, and beating the bounds, which denoted the freehold possession of land. The modern method of validation uses the pen and ink signatures of the transacting parties and attesting witnesses. The objective remains the same: to identify the parties to a transaction, confirm their consent and intentions and accurately describe the land being transferred. There is much in the process that has not changed.

The public deserves a faster and less stressful way of buying and selling property. This Bill provides much of the legislative framework for a fully electronic process which will handle the transactions on-line. I hope that if it is handled electronically, it might make the process cheaper. A frustrating aspect of the process is the fact that if a person engages a solicitor to act for him or her, the first question he or she is asked relates to the cost of the property. This reflects the amount that the solicitor must receive. This must be changed because one is essentially looking at the same type of transaction. If a person is buying a home or business, there should be a cost for it. There may be slight variations but it is a rather crude way of deciding the bill.

The Bill will fundamentally change our relationships with conveyancers who will, under the projected system, prepare electronic documents and verify the details against the register. They will then be able to use a secure network to communicate drafts to the other parties to the transaction and obtain approval of the documents. When they are finally approved, they will automatically be given legal effect through the entry of the results into the register.

The single most important task over the next few years will be the establishment of the system. The degree to which the potential of this technological innovation is harnessed will be a test of the Government's commitment to it. Our national housing stock has been conservatively valued at more than €300 billion, with more than €50 billion in mortgages. Concerns have been expressed about the degree to which we are indebted, however, that is another issue. As part of its purpose of providing a legal framework for electronic business, will electronic signatures and contracts be given the same status as written contracts? This is a very important issue that must be addressed.

This Bill will substantially subordinate legislation to attain its goal of facilitating the process of electronic conveyancing. The speeding up of this process would make a major contribution towards avoiding the possibility of "gazumping". I do not think this practice existed a few years ago and buyers were hit with it when property prices began spiralling out of control. The repeal of the antiquated registration of deeds legislation, which dates back almost 200 years, and the amending of the Registration of Title Act 1964 are just two constituent parts of the electronic jigsaw. If the conveyancing process is to be speeded up significantly, the use of electronic contracts and signatures will not be the main factor. It will boil down to the rapid flow of information in a standard form to facilitate the quick delivery of such information to the end user, the home buyer. This flow of reliable information should enable him or her to make an informed decision regarding purchase and should achieve the desirable aim of discouraging gazumping. The information will generally flow between solicitors, lenders, surveyors, local authorities and the Land Registry, which in this Bill is embracing the electronic revolution.

The key to the success and the ultimate aim of electronic conveyancing is the integrity and security of the flow of information, which the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds will bring about. Certification authority for digital signatures of necessity would require approval, and while lightness of touch in the general commercial way may be acceptable, it would be another matter with regard to land.

One's own home is for most people their most valuable asset and a single large purchase in which they will at some point be instructing a solicitor. In most cases it will be the only time a person will instruct a solicitor. To foster public confidence, any electronic method of conveyancing must have, and be seen to have, the utmost integrity. Electronic voting was tested in two constituencies and although it appeared to work, the equipment is now shelved. The simple reason for this was the element of doubt created that it was not the best solution. With regard to the purchase of a home, we must be seen to be completely above board. This may be a difficulty, and Deputy Ring referred already to electronic voting. Lessons may have to be learned from that experience.

Digital mapping is a major project that needs to be implemented to ensure that electronic conveyancing will become a reality. Not alone should land related information be available to customers of the Land Registry, it should be linked into the European Land Information Service, or EULIS as it is also known. Land information for European countries will become available through EULIS to facilitate international transactions for property and finance. We have many international transactions at present. Ordinary people are buying property abroad and we should be linked into this system. We have the opportunity to consider this and take it on board.

Infrastructure is slowly but surely being put in place to realise the grand plan of the rapid land transfer system. As the Bill indicates, it is merely preparing the way for an electronic conveyancing system and it represents a somewhat cautious approach to the electronic conveyancing challenge. Once everything is in place to ensure the quickest take-up of the technology and the earliest introduction of a fully integrated electronic conveyancing system, it is essential to set a strict but reasonable timescale for its introduction. We may have it on the books but it is important to set a timeframe and to introduce it on a given date.

At the time of introduction, electronic conveyancing should be compulsory. Changes are coming whether lawyers like it or not. We should not shy away from these changes but embrace them and work towards the benefits that they can bring. The Bill is part of the process of modernisation of the registration system and migration between types of registries, and the availability of an electronic register will hasten this process. It will enable registries to play a pivotal role in the successful implementation of the electronic conveyancing in Ireland, and I hope we proceed with it.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. B. Lenihan)

I thank Deputies for their contributions and for their broad support for this measure. While it contains many technical proposals and measures, it also establishes the property registration authority to manage and control the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds. The aim of the Bill is to modernise and streamline registration mechanisms and procedures.

The Government recognises the contribution an efficient and accessible land registration system can make to improving the climate for business and enhancing business activity. It is an essential requirement in a modern successful economy. We should not underestimate its practical importance for individual home owners wishing to dispose of their property or to borrow funds for whatever reason.

Many of the points raised in Deputies' contributions were of a detailed nature and are therefore more appropriate for discussion on Committee Stage. I wish to respond on some of the more general policy issues that were raised during the debate. Promoting and extending registration of ownership of land will be a key function for the new property registration authority. The first attempt to introduce registration of title in Ireland was in the Record of Title (Ireland) Act 1865. Its scope was, however, limited to land sales that were sanctioned by the Landed Estates Court under the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act 1858. This legislation was an attempt to free up large estates incumbered by family settlements by permitting sale of the land and using the proceeds to discharge the incumbrances. This allowed the purchasers to acquire clear title to the land in question. The 1865 Act made provision for registering such titles but did not establish a dedicated land registry. As a result, little use was made of the registration option.

Apart from this little-known historical episode, the various land purchase Acts at the end of the 19th century led to the establishment of the local registration of title system in Ireland. The land purchase legislation provided loans for tenant farmers to purchase their holdings from landlords subject to annual repayments in the form of land purchase annuities. As these schemes involved the advancing of large amounts of public funds, it was considered that title to the lands in question — which formed the security for the loans and which might have to be sold in the event of default — should be secured by means of registration in a modern system.

Arising from this, the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act 1891 established the Land Registry and provided that the registration of title was compulsory in all cases where land was purchased under the land purchase schemes. All this land has remained within the registration of title system. The system brought about by the 1891 Act is the correct system for the registration of titles, pioneered by the theorist Torrens and reflecting on the local register the actual ownership of the land. The significance of the 1891 Act is that we have now arrived at the stage where approximately 85% of the land in the State, including almost all farmland, is registered in the Land Registry.

The Registration of Title Act 1964 modernised the 1891 Act and restated its basic and essential provisions in a reformed format. It foresaw the gradual extension of compulsory registration, but in reality very little progress has been made in compulsory registration, notwithstanding that the registration of titles system in the 1964 Act is the superior system for the registration of land transactions. Listening to some Deputies and their complaints about the Land Registry and the delays therein, one might wonder if it is the superior system that is alleged. Those are, however, operational matters. The theory of the Land Registry is undoubtedly superior to other registration systems.

Compulsory registration was applied to counties Carlow, Laois and Meath in 1970. The compulsory registration order that the Minister made in September last means that counties Longford, Roscommon and Westmeath will join these counties as compulsory registration areas with effect from 1 April next. Since most of the farmland in these counties is already registered in the Land Registry, the main impact of the order will be on transactions involving urban land in these areas.

While urban land outside compulsory areas may be registered under existing provisions on a voluntary basis, much of it remains unregistered because of the time and effort that may be required to register it and because of the difficulties that may arise in sorting out complex pyramid titles. It is difficult to state how many unregistered titles remain at the present time, and there may be as many as 350,000. A major challenge for the new authority will therefore be to devise a strategy to promote and extend registration of urban land.

The Minister has already agreed to a change in land registration rules proposed by the rules committee which increases the self-certification limit on applications for first registration received from solicitors from €250,000 to €1 million. This means that a solicitor who has examined a title and is satisfied that the property is free from any adverse rights, restrictive covenants or incumbrances can certify it and apply for absolute title for his or her client and this will be accepted by the Land Registry.

The reforms contained in this Bill will undoubtedly lead to operational efficiencies within the Land Registry and, as a result, to increased capacity to deal with applications for registration. On the need for additional resources, the Minister prefers to await the views of the authority on this matter in due course.

Several Deputies mentioned the need to modernise our land and conveyancing laws. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is committed to law reform in the two related areas for which he has responsibility, namely, substantive land and conveyancing law and the land registration systems which are dealt with in the Bill before us. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is involved in a joint project with the Law Reform Commission with a view to modernising our land and conveyancing laws. The first phase of the project resulted in a Law Reform Commission consultation paper on reform and modernisation of land law and conveyancing law which contains more than 90 recommendations for a radical and far-reaching overhaul of all our land and conveyancing statutes. It was published in October 2004 and was followed by a consultation process.

The next stage of the project was the publication of a Law Reform Commission report which the Minister launched on 14 July 2005 and which contains a draft land and conveyancing law Bill. The Government legislation programme which was published last week provides for the publication of the Bill in 2006. Work is already under way on preparing a text for publication.

The joint project identified more than 160 pre-1922 statutes which should now be repealed, the earliest of which date back to the 13th century. The repeal of redundant statute law and the removal of outdated notions such as feudal tenure will represent a significant contribution to the process of regulatory reform, including statute law revision, to which the Government has committed itself.

In light of a recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, the Minister wishes to put on record a few words concerning adverse possession. The statutory position is that applications for title based on adverse possession of land are made to the Land Registry under section 49 of the Registration of Title Act 1964. In such cases, the applicant claims that the rights of the registered owner have been extinguished under the Statute of Limitations and that the applicant is now entitled to be registered as owner. For obvious reasons, the Land Registry considers all applications for registration based on adverse possession with particular care and attention. In each case, the facts and circumstances are examined in great detail and it is usual for notices to be served on the parties whose rights have allegedly been extinguished by the passage of time.

Some applications are withdrawn by the applicant on receipt of correspondence from the Land Registry outlining the legal conditions that are necessary to acquire title by means of adverse possession. Where it appears to the Registrar of Titles that an application in any particular case is vexatious or frivolous or does not meet the stringent requirements of section 49, the application will be refused. It is open to any party to a section 49 application to appeal a decision of the Registrar of Titles to the courts but in practice, such appeals are rare.

The Registrar of Titles has informed me that the stay that she placed, with effect from 7 December 2005, on the processing of applications based on adverse possession of land was temporary pending consideration of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. the United Kingdom. The stay was lifted with effect from 5 January 2006. The full implications of the ECHR judgment in this case have yet to be determined. However, it does not become effective until mid-February at the earliest. In the event of a successful appeal of the judgment by the UK authorities under existing appeal mechanisms, the case will be reconsidered by the Grand Chamber at Strasbourg and a new judgment will be delivered in due course.

Before concluding, the Minister wishes to inform the House that he intends to introduce several amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage which are intended further to improve efficiencies within the registries. These proposals have been triggered by earlier discussions in Seanad Éireann and by the responses of the Land Registry and the Law Society to issues that have been raised in connection with the Bill. They include the phasing out of land certificates and certificates of charge. It is accepted by interested bodies, including the Law Reform Commission, the Law Society, the Irish Mortgage Council and the Land Registry, that the continued use and operation of land certificates and certificates of charge constitutes an obstacle to the introduction and operation of electronic conveyancing. The Minister intends to provide on Committee Stage for a phasing out of these certificates.

Another issue concerns permitting applications for qualified title. While existing legislation allows the Registrar of Deeds and Titles to grant qualified title in certain cases, such as where the registrar is not satisfied that absolute title is justified, it does not allow applicants to apply for such title. The Minister intends to remedy this shortcoming by allowing applications for qualified title. The 1964 Act already contains provisions that permit, with the passage of time, the conversion of such titles into absolute titles.

The Minister intends to provide that leases of registered land will also be registered. At present, the owner of registered land may lease the property, or part of it, and the lease is deemed to convey an unregistered leasehold interest. For the lease to be registered, the lessee must apply for a first registration. This takes both time and money. The Minister intends to amend the 1964 Act to make it much easier to register leases of registered property. The aim of these amendments is to simplify registration procedures further with a view to reducing delays and paving the way for electronic conveyancing of land.

Question put and agreed to.