Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS debate -
Wednesday, 24 Nov 2004

Report on Land Law Reform: Presentation.

I welcome everyone here today, particularly the representatives of the Law Reform Commission, together with Professor J.C.W. Wylie, Professor of Law at Cardiff University, who will give a presentation on the recently published consultation paper on the reform and modernisation of land law and conveyancing law. I also welcome the commissioner of the Law Reform Commission, Ms Patricia Rickard-Clarke.

Ms Patricia Rickard-Clarke

I thank the Chairman for inviting us here today. We welcome the opportunity to speak about the paper which I will briefly introduce before handing over to Professor Wylie who was the lead researcher on this paper. Pearse Rayel is the programme manager with the Law Reform Commission, Professor Finbarr McAuley from UCD is a part-time commissioner, Marian Shanley, solicitor, is also a part-time commissioner, John Quirke is the secretary of the commission, Seamus Carroll represents the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform because this is a joint project between the Department and the commission, and Raymond Byrne is director of research with the commission. The committee may remember that Professor David Gwynn Morgan was here on the last occasion. Mr. Byrne has replaced Professor David Gwynn Morgan as director of research in the past year.

I congratulate Mr. Byrne.

Ms Rickard-Clarke

I will briefly introduce the paper. The committee has the briefing paper which sets out what the project is about. We have also mentioned briefly in the paper the two related independent projects, a project on landlord and tenant law and one on multi-unit developments.

The way we work is as follows. We produced a consultation paper, which was launched by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform at the end of October; we have a conference tomorrow which is part of our consultation process; and we will then shortly start work on our report. Attached to the report we will give a draft outline of legislation, making the suggestions for change. We hope to produce that final report and draft legislation in 2005. That is the timetable to which we have worked.

We have received great support and commitment from the Department and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in this. This paper really concentrates on the pre-1922 statutes and, as the committee will see, we start in the 13th century. I will hand over to Professor Wylie who will briefly outline what we are doing.

Professor John Wylie

I will keep this short because I suspect some of the members may have questions. I will be more than happy to take those questions.

As Commissioner Rickard-Clarke stated, essentially this is all about trying to bring our land law and conveyancing system into the 21st century. Our system is still based upon old feudal law introduced to this country an awfully long time ago — 800 or 900 years ago. It really is absurd, when the State has been independent for more than 80 years, that we still have a system of land conveyancing which is based upon old English feudal law. This report or consultation paper is all about changing that and making our law a modern system fit for the 21st century.

A large part of that process is getting rid of old legislation, most of which was enacted centuries ago. It was enacted in an age when things were quite different, not in the sort of vibrant, modern, commercial jurisdiction that we have nowadays. We are getting rid of all that old legislation. Some of it contains material which is still of relevance today and the expectation is that this will be replaced by new legislation which will be couched in a much more modern form. A large part of this paper is about modernising our legislation because it really is ridiculous that we still have statutes on the Statute Book dating back to the 13th century. That is an important aspect of this.

It is important to see this in context. This is simply part of a much larger project to revolutionise our conveyancing process. It is ridiculous in this day and age, when our lives are being ruled more by computers, that our conveyancing system is still based on the age of the quill pen and ink. Even the most simple, apparently straightforward conveyancing transaction can take weeks to complete and it really is time that something was done about that. That is what the e-conveyancing project is all about, using computer technology to revolutionise the way we buy and sell houses. When one thinks about it, computers are ideal for doing this. At the end of the day, conveyancing is all about getting information about the property that one is buying and information about the person who alleges that he or she is the owner of the property. Computers are simply a fast means of storing information and making it available quickly. What we need to do is ensure that all the information one needs from a conveyancing point of view is stored on computer databases, which can be accessed quickly and effectively at the touch of a button. If we get to that stage, then conveyancing transactions will be capable of being carried out in a fraction of the time it takes at present.

It will take us a while to get to that point because much of this information one needs to obtain for a conveyancing transaction is held by different bodies such as the Land Registry, the Registry of Deeds and public bodies like the local authorities. At present the trouble is that many of these bodies are at different stages in the storage of their information on computer databases. What we must do is encourage all these bodies to keep their information on computer databases, which then may be linked up properly so that in due course one will be able to get this information in respect of any particular property or any particular person in the State. When we get to that stage, it seems we can realistically think about having a fast and relatively simple system of conveyancing. The Law Reform Commission is examining how one gets to that stage.

This is part of a much larger project. Perhaps that is a good point at which to stop. That gives the committee a flavour of what this is all about.

It seems the objective is simple.

Professor Wylie

Getting there is not so simple.

I welcome the delegation. In some ways, I should declare an interest. The first people who will be delighted with their work are law students. I say that as somebody who a while ago was a lost student ploughing through Acts of Parliament going back to the statutes of Westminster in 1285 and 1290. If they complete their work, they will have enthusiastic support from future law students.

I wish to look at where they might get other enthusiastic support. I hope their work, which at first sight might look dry and arcane, will have a practical benefit. I suppose the objective will be that we will have a simple secure conveyancing system that will not be too expensive. A number of questions arise in the context of meeting that objective.

At present there are two systems, the Registry of Deeds and the Land Registry. The Registry of Deeds goes back a long time. When I was a student we had to write up the memorials on parchment but presumably they have gone well past that at this stage. Is the idea to combine those and have a single compulsory registration of all titles? What roughly is the objective there?

If the systems are simplified, it will eliminate some of the delays, although I suppose one must take into account that there are many factors in conveyancing today from the point of view of planning, compliance with by-laws and regulations, surveyors' reports, etc. It is perhaps forgotten that such matters must be dealt with too and probably do not fit into the normal title conveyancing system. They are additions which will cause their own problems.

I understand that the United States has an insurance-based system of conveyancing, particularly where there are estates involved, which is much less expensive. One pays an insurance bond and that results in a quicker and much less expensive operation. Is there a possibility that something like that may ultimately emerge? It would be of benefit if Professor Wylie could give a thumbnail sketch of where and how he is aiming to drive the system? I am quite rusty in this area as it is a long time since I drew up a conveyance.

Professor Wylie

The Deputy is quite right that the dual system of registered and unregistered land bedevils the current system where only certain titles are registered in the Land Registry. By and large the title to agricultural land is registered because in the old days when tenant farmers were given the right to buy out the freehold interest, the farmers in that scheme had the sense to ensure the title of ownership must be registered in the Land Registry. The problem in urban areas is that the land is unregistered land, subject to the old Registry of Deeds system, which means one must struggle with bundles of title deeds and carry out a repetitive investigation of title every time a property changes hands. That is a much less efficient system. Clearly the ideal would be to have all land registered, and I think in due course the Government must give consideration to a system of compulsory registration of all land. The tragedy is that although the mechanism for that exists, there are provisions in the Registration of Title Act 1964 allowing for the designation of counties as compulsory registration areas, but that power has been rarely exercised, largely I suspect because of manpower problems and so forth in the Land Registry. If we are to make substantial progress in this area, there must be a sustained strategy for getting all titles into the Land Registry. It has been done in England. A strategy was devised about 20 years ago and now approximately 99.99% of the land mass of England and Wales is on registers in the Land Registry. There is hardly any unregistered land left. That is something that must be considered here.

In my view, this is a prerequisite for an e-conveyancing system. I cannot envisage having a sophisticated simple, touch of a button e-conveyancing system available except through a registered land system. I cannot see it operating with respect to unregistered land, where there are great bundles of old fusty title deeds lying around all over the place. The task of trying to capture all of those deeds and reproducing them on a computer database would be a nightmare. I do not think it would be feasible and quite frankly I do not think it would work. It would be such a waste of time when the ultimate goal must be to have all titles on the Land Registry, in which case one does not need all of these old deeds.

The Deputy is correct, the ultimate goal clearly is to have all titles to land held in the Land Registry. Then the Registry of Deeds would not be needed. I appreciate there would be still practical matters to be addressed, even if one had a sophisticated computerised database containing all the information relating to the titles of the property and the local authorities were completely computerised, in order that all the planning information was available on computer databases. That presents major problems because local authorities are only becoming computerised now and still have a long way to go. Even when all that is done, one still must deal with practical problems such as raising the finance to buy the property, which means one must deal with lending institutions that will require a valuation of the property before they are willing to lend money on the security of the property, provide surveys and so forth. We will examine ways to streamline that process.

Members may be aware that in England, before a property is put on the market the vendor will be required, under the provisions of the Housing Act which came into force last week, to have available to any prospective purchaser what is known as a sellers pack, which will contain all sorts of information about the property and will include a survey carried out by an independent surveyor. This measure has been very controversial and the jury is still out as to how it will work. That is something we should consider because it means the vendor is not waiting around for the purchaser to arrange to have a survey carried out or for the lending institutions to arrange for a valuation to be done. Anything that will reduce the time lag from deciding to buy a property and having a contract to buy it will reduce the uncertainty. At the end of the day, not only law students, but the general public will be pleased with the outcome. Buying a home is when most people acquire the most valuable asset they will ever acquire in their lifetimes.

We now live in the computer age and most people are aware of the impact of computers on their daily lives, but when they engage in the most significant financial transaction of their lives, they are in a paper system, where lawyers are racing around churning out all of this paper, which takes weeks. I think the general public will question why the system is not more advanced.

On average a house in the city selling for €500,000, generates fees of €5,000 plus for both the solicitor and the auctioneer, with the person who arranges the mortgage getting fees of another couple of thousand plus. When the new system is in place will a computer package do all the work much cheaper, making the process of buying and selling property more competitive and more attractive for people?

Professor Wylie

In my view, if one simplifies and speeds up a process, it must have an impact on the overall cost. If it does not, there is something wrong with the system. Clearly that must be a substantial aim for the system. We must be careful about one thing. It is all very well having a computer system that makes available detailed information about the property, but somebody must make sense of the technical legal information. I do not think one could get to the point where professional expertise will not be required to interpret the information. The information may be available to the purchaser instantaneously, but somebody must make sense of it, for example, there may be planning complications because a kitchen extension may have been built and it is doubtful whether planning permission was obtained, there may be doubts about whether conditions attached to the planning permission were complied with and so forth. Somebody must explain to the perspective purchaser the implications of all of this and it seems there will be still a need for professional expertise to do that. I do not think it will come to the point where one will feed a computer disk into a machine and press a few buttons and one will become the owner of the property. I accept that if the process is simplified and speeded up, there must be a saving in the expense involved.

Government stamp duty is a major expense in buying a property.

Professor Wylie

It is not for me to comment on that.

Ms Rickard-Clarke

May I add to what Professor Wylie has said on the simplification of the system? I emphasise that this paper is the beginning of simplifying the law. The current law is legislation dating back a number of centuries which is convoluted, archaic and complex. Therefore, the ordinary man in the street does not realise, if, for example, there is a trust or a settlement on title, that there are issues which a lawyer must investigate and of which he or she must advise his or her client.

The first point is the simplification of the law. That is the aim of this paper, to get the legislation up to date in a modern, simple and transparent format which people understand. The second point, to return to the issue of simplification and a co-ordinated approach, is that the working group dealing with this paper consisted of a number of expert practitioners, who give of their time voluntarily to assist in and contribute to the debate. In addition, we have two other groups working alongside this, which, as Professor Wylie stated, is part of a bigger project which is an administrative group. The purpose of that administrative group is to examine all the public authorities or bodies that contribute to a conveyancing transaction. We have spoken to a number of local authorities about the planning to get them up to speed on exactly what we are trying to achieve. We have spoken to the Courts Service regarding judgment mortgages registered against land, etc. We have spoken at length with the Land Registry. We have spoken with financial institutions. We have spoken to a wide range of groups and people to get them to buy into what we are trying to achieve in terms of e-conveyancing in order that everybody is on stream and it will not come as a surprise. At this stage everybody is working towards a fully registered system with all information available on-line, if necessary, at a future stage.

The third element of the process is what we call procedural. Early in the new year we will examine the conveyancing process on a step-by-step basis, analysing transactions by auction, by private treaty, a mortgage or whatever. We will examine the steps involved in each of those transactions and how they can be changed under a new computerised system. That is a project for next year.

Those three elements will work together. That is part of the overall project but the main prop is the simplification of the substantive law which is extremely necessary.

The commission seems to be taking a proactive initiative in a quantum change in the process of conveyancing as well as a change in the law of conveyancing.

Ms Rickard-Clarke

Yes.

The commission should be complimented on doing so because that is what the country needs. I applaud the commission for taking that initiative.

Ms Rickard-Clarke

We have had a working group in place since 1987 and we completed a number of reports which were not part of the bigger picture. We therefore decided to look at the big picture and ask what needs to be done for the ordinary man in the street in modern Ireland in terms of conveyancing. That is how we approached it. We looked at the systems in place in other jurisdictions and we received enormous help from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which enabled us to get to this stage.

I am sorry for taking up the time but that is one of the prerogatives of being Chairman.

I welcome Ms Rickard-Clarke and all her team. I particularly welcome Professor Wylie. For anybody who has been involved in this area, as I have been for the past 20 years or so, as a student and as a practitioner, Professor Wylie stands out as one of the most eminent academics in the area of conveyancing law and practice. As I went through college, the mere mention of the name Wylie was enough to strike fear into the hearts of thousands of students, such was the complexity of the tomes which came out from him every now and again. His reputation is internationally renowned.

I welcome the report and its recommendations. Obviously, an enormous amount of work has gone into it.

I also want to focus on the non-conveyancing aspects of buying a house. With the best will in the world, even if every property in the country was made compulsorily registrable, was registered and could be simply conveyed by the press of a button in the Land Registry, that is only 10% of the difficulties faced by the commission. I spoke to a few practitioners in advance of this meeting and they would have liked to come in and tell the commission the exact position for practitioners.

I will give a flavour of what goes beyond mere conveyancing. If one bought a house in 1980, the number of documents which had to be passed from the vendor's solicitor to the purchaser's solicitor varied from five to seven. Nowadays the average number of such documents is 25. The central document is still the conveyance or the deed of transfer, but Government bureaucracy and administration has tagged on many additional aspects to what ought to be a simple transaction. It is that which has made the process extremely cumbersome, difficult, time-consuming and expensive. It is the expense which is most relevant to the average person in the street. I will list a few of the elements imposed by Government, by statute and by regulation. The planning issue is one. There was a time when that was not part of the conveyancing process and many people still argue it should not be part of it. While it is not exactly a matter for today, issues such as a planning amnesty are hugely important. In some local authorities it takes four or five weeks to get a planning certificate and yet one cannot complete a transaction without getting a planning certificate. Other issues include the PD forms, which have nothing to do with the party; the imposition of considerable requirements on the practitioners to get the taxation details of both the buyer and seller; tax clearance certificates in the case of a raft of properties, especially licensed properties; and the requirement to get up-to-date receipts for all sorts of outgoings such as rates, service charges and, occasionally, electricity. Such matters are a significant imposition on the conveyancing process. It is sometimes more difficult to complete a conveyancing transaction for want of bin tags because the purchaser wants to ensure the bin charges are paid up to date. These are the matters causing the real delays and they should not be part of the conveyancing process.

The expansion of family law, as the commission will be aware, has put considerable impositions and delays on the conveyancing process. The issue of structural surveys was mentioned by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. Environmental issues, including the wider issue of contaminated sites and environmental legislation, impact on the conveyancing transaction because there is a legal duty of care, particularly on the purchaser's solicitor, which is expanding almost yearly. Almost an Act per year imposes extra requirements which are tagged on to the mere conveyancing document of transfer. Matters such as roads and services indemnities being part of the conveyancing process and whether they have been assigned from purchaser A to purchaser B and so on are the relevant issues in terms of speeding up the conveyancing process. They relate to Government or perhaps the courts, by imposing ever greater duties of care.

These are all justifying the solicitors' fees.

That is it. If one removed all of these matters, which one would do with a great degree of difficulty, then one could make a good case to the solicitors and to the Law Society to cut the fees in half or by two thirds automatically.

I agree with Professor Wylie about making all land compulsorily registrable. In an ideal world, that would be the way to proceed, except for the simple problem that the requirements of first registration by the Land Registry are considerable and extremely cumbersome. Any conveyancing practitioner will tell the commission that if he or she had a choice to first register or not, he or she would avoid doing so if at all possible because of the difficulties and the risks imposed on the solicitor as a result. I suggest we introduce a system where solicitors can certify the title, having got some type of State indemnity in case they get it wrong. Most solicitors will not want to get it wrong and will use their professional judgment in trying to get it right, but should they get it wrong and be sued for the cost of the properties in the range of €500,000 to €1 million, that would impose a greater degree of care which would take time, which I do not think solicitors would be willing to undertake. It would be helpful if a system could be devised whereby all solicitors could simply certify the title, stating "I have investigated this title" and it should be first registered, put up on the computer and the State would back that, with appropriate exclusions for gross negligence, recklessness and so on.

As mentioned by Professor Wylie, the financing of the transaction is a key to many of the delays. If all the reforms proposed in the report were brought into force tomorrow morning, the problem of getting life assurance which can take from between two to five weeks is the biggest stumbling block to completing the conveyancing transaction. The trimmings that are tagged on to a conveyancing transaction present a real problem. I say that with all due respect to the significant work that has gone into this report, which students and practitioners alike will welcome.

Ms Rickard-Clarke

Perhaps Mr. Seamus Carroll will comment on the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds.

Mr. Seamus Carroll

Obviously my presence signifies this is a joint project between the Department and the Law Reform Commission. This is very important for three reasons, the first being the substantive reform of the law. It is astonishing that in this area the law has remained unreformed when one considers that in the 1960s the Succession Act 1965 consolidated the law and replaced all the old laws on inheritance and succession and the legislation on the registration of title was enacted in 1964. This area of law appears to have escaped scrutiny until now. There is a real challenge to reform and update the law in this important area which has implications for everybody who holds property. The second reason is that the Government committed itself to the process of regulatory reform and, in particular to updating the Statute Book and to reviewing pre-1922 legislation. A statute law revision Bill will be presented shortly but there are exercises such as this taking place elsewhere, which will make a significant contribution to the regulatory reform process. This consultation paper has identified more than 150 pre-1922 statutes for repeal and where necessary, replacement. It is a considerable contribution to the Government's commitment to regulatory reform. In due course, it will be a significant contribution to the whole process of e-government and to improving access to services for the benefit of both citizens and business. The process of reform has already commenced to the extent that a Registration of Deeds and Title Bill was presented in the Seanad earlier this week. The Bill provides for the replacement of all the old legislation dealing with the Registry of Deeds, dating back to 1707. It will put the Registry of Deeds on to a sound footing. It also makes provision for certain changes to the Registration of Title Act 1964, with a view to making e-conveyancing a reality. This is a challenging project which will, in due course, lead to proposals for legislation next year but in the meantime the process of reform has already started with the tabling of this Bill.

Can anybody address the issue of the bin tags and the electricity bills and so on?

Professor Wylie

I agree entirely with everything Deputy Peter Power said and none of it was of any surprise to me. I have heard these points many times over. All I can do at this stage is give an assurance that all those matters are being considered. My view is that at the end of the day, the Law Reform Commission will tell the Government that if it wants an e-conveyancing system to fit in with its proposals on e-government and e-commerce, the following must be done. It comes down to political will as to whether the Government is prepared to make this happen. In this work all sorts of delays occur which are not the fault of the lawyers. The lawyers get the blame of course, but it is usually not their fault. The delays result from having to dig out information from all sorts of different sources and the time it takes to get it. We must change that system. This will present a major challenge to the Land Registry. If an e-conveyancing system is to operate, and have the confidence of those who operate it, including the lawyers, there must be a culture change in terms of the approach to the registration process. One of the problems has been the notion of a State guarantee of the title, therefore one must not do anything that will cause a claim. This leads to a very conservative approach. We must adopt a more commercial approach. The suggestion of a solicitors' certification scheme must be pursued. One suggestion was title insurance, but I am not sure that is the answer because at the end of the day if something goes wrong and clients do not get the properties they thought they were getting, they will only get some insurance money. People do not want that. If one spends a great deal of time finding the house of one's dreams, one wants to end up in it and not hear that it has all gone wrong because of the title. I am not convinced a title insurance scheme is the answer. However, clearly it is an item that we must consider.

Due to time constraints, will Professor Wylie bank the questions from Deputies Costello and Finian McGrath and answer them when he is wrapping up?

I welcome the delegation from the Law Reform Commission. I am not a lawyer, but Professor Wylie is very well known and commands great respect. In the first instance, Professor Wylie proposes that the existing legislation be repealed. It appears that a significant body of the pre-1922 legislation can be repealed without replacement. If matters were to stop there, a good job would still be done. He then outlines the legislation that must be replaced with the final step being the codification of the law. Will Professor Wylie be able to suggest a consolidated Bill that will codified the law? The setting up of e-conveyancing is a worthy objective, but the pitfalls have been pointed out and it will be difficult to achieve it. As we know from our efforts to work in a paperless office, it seems to generate more paper and I am sure this area will not be any different. Professor Wylie referred to the significant work undertaken in other common law countries, citing examples in England, Wales, Canada and New Zealand. To what extent has that been successful? Are there any templates which can be used as a model?

On the broader issue of title and conveyancing, a major concern in Dublin is that very often people are anxious to buy their home from the local authority and there is no title. The flames in the Four Courts may have deprived us of certain documentation or perhaps title was never registered. It takes years to create a title. Are there any proposals for creating a title where no title has been found?

Another question for local authorities is how to put together a conveyancing package to sell flat complexes. These were referred to as multi-unit developments. This has bedevilled the local authorities, who are told it is a legal minefield.

I do not see any mention of ground rents. Can we abolish the pre-1922 ground rents system?

If Deputy Costello can find the solution to all those problems, he will be a very popular politician.

I welcome the representatives of the Law Reform Commission and commend them on their work. The professor used the word 'absurd' to describe the fact that we still have legislation going back to the feudal system. Why has this escaped scrutiny for so long?

On conveyancing, reference was made to the potential savings for house purchasers and the possibility of making it more efficient. A very import aspect will be the confidence and trust of the customers. Will the new system be 100% reliable? The submission refers to the experience in Canada and New Zealand. Has this been positive and has it led to a more efficient service? How do we fare internationally in relation to landlord and tenant law? Are we up to date or behind?

Submissions have to be made to the Law Reform Commission by 31 December. What types of groups make submissions? Is it open to residents and tenants groups and consumer groups to make submissions?

I too welcome Professor John Wylie and the members of the Law Reform Commission. My questions are brief and some of them have been touched on already. It seems to be a nightmare for the agricultural community to establish ownership of commonage land. The problem has come to the fore because of European laws whereby the agricultural community must establish what they own and produce land maps. We are told that it takes years to establish the ownership of commonage land. I hope this will be clearly addressed in the work of the commission.

While it has been claimed that the land of Tipperary has been fully registered, I know of a few places in the town of Nenagh where we are not able to establish the name of any person who owns a derelict site. We are looking for courageous people who will endeavour to buy these properties and look for title. If this issue is not addressed there will continue to be derelict sites in provincial towns.

When the tenant of a local authority house wants to buy it, the maps must be corrected with the Land Registry. Sometimes it is discovered that the house was not built on the exact site specified, owing to the discovery of rock, for example, when the foundations were being excavated. When a local authority builds a housing estate, they should establish immediately that the maps are correct. Everything should be in place when a tenant wants to buy a house.

I hope those issues will be addressed and I thank the commission for its excellent work. Its members are always welcome to our committee.

When my alarm clock rang at 4.30 this morning in Bantry I was not thinking of the Law Reform Commission and it was a bit of a struggle to get here. I regret being late. I acknowledge the tremendous work of the commission over many years, sometimes unrecognised, and the very useful reports it has published which in many instances have been the catalyst for legislative change.

Is it possible from a practical point of view that compulsory registration would become a matter of fact throughout the country? I recently came across a title in West Cork, a fee farm grant going back 350 years. Compulsory registration would streamline these matters.

On ground rents, I chaired a committee on the Constitution where we came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that there was no constitutional bar to the purchase of ground rents. That is another legacy of the feudal system that we might be able to overcome. The Government is saying that there is High Court case pending and they are rather leadránach about moving forward.

A quirk I have had to deal with in my profession is old estates, for example, the Kenmare estate where the last person to be traced was back in the 1930s. This caused lots of headaches with issues like hunting rights and various lands in west Cork. There was a Barrett estate in Macroom and so on. The Bantry House estate is different because the Whites are still there and there is a book of title. There are a number of estates which in reality are defunct but in practical terms causing many difficulties. It is six or seven years since I have done any conveyancing but these are some of the points I wish to raise.

I again apologise for being late for this important meeting. I was one of the people who welcomed the notion that the Law Reform Commission should come before us.

Thank you. I appreciate the long journey from Bantry — traffic in Dublin does not help either.

Professor Wylie

There are a number of projects going on, covering matters such as agricultural tenancies, commonages, ground rents and so forth. There are also other projects in which I am involved. These matters are all being addressed. There is a separate project on flat schemes and apartments and we hope to produce a consultation paper some time in the new year. We are hoping to produce a consultation paper on that sometime in the new year.

We are considering what other jurisdictions are doing in respect of e-conveyancing. Some of them are obviously further advanced, although I am not sure whether many of them have schemes that are actually up and running. In England, they have prepared a scheme which is going to operate on, I believe, a pilot basis in a couple of years' time. The English are fairly far advanced in terms of devising their scheme. Members may rest assured that we are considering the options. My attitude is to allow other jurisdictions to cut their teeth on this matter and make the mistakes and we can then learn from them.

There are some questions in respect of which we must have answers.

Professor Wylie

There is a distinction that lawyers make between consolidation, which is where all the old legislation is gathered together in one Act which is then kept up to date as a core statute — this was done with the Taxes (Consolidation) Act, of which we will be producing an equivalent thereof — and codification. Consolidation is not codification in the sense that it contains all of the law. I am not convinced we could actually reach the point where we could codify everything. The reason for that is that one of the great developments in land law and conveyancing over the centuries has been the extent to which the courts have been willing to consider new situations and to recognise new interests which might not have been recognised 50 years previously, etc. The courts do this through what is termed "equitable jurisdiction".

I do not see how the courts could ever be constrained in respect of this matter because they must remain free to adjust the law, to do justice in particular cases, etc. I do not foresee us ever reaching the point where all land law and conveyancing would be codified and that it could not be added to or subtracted from thereafter. There always must be an element of court jurisdiction. However, we will come quite close to it in the sort of consolidation we will produce.

Ms Rickard-Clarke

We are open to submissions from members of the public or interest groups that wish to make them. We must obviously work on submissions and take them into account in our deliberations but even if they arrive after 31 December, we would be happy to receive them.

That concludes our discussion which I found fruitful and useful from the point of view of the information our guests provided in respect of land law. I hope they found it useful to hear the views of members. I look forward to having more frequent meetings with the representatives of the Law Reform Commission on appropriate topics, as they arise. We will certainly keep in touch in that regard.

Ms Rickard-Clarke

I thank the Chairman.

I thank our guests for their input. We appreciate their appearing before the committee today.

The joint committee went into private session at 10.33 p.m. and adjourned at 10.36 p.m. sine die.

Top
Share