Vol. 393 No. 1
I move:
"That Dáil Éireann deplores the enormous delays and the deteriorating position in the Land Registry and calls for its establishment as an efficient business orientated semi-State Corporation."
I hope to share the time available to me with my colleague Deputy Charles Flanagan. I trust that will be in order.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is very clear that the system of registration of title is breaking down. The Land Registry was established about 100 years ago by the Registration of Title Act, 1891, which now operates under the 1964 Act. The then Minister for Justice, Deputy Charles J. Haughey, in introducing that Bill, stated that the system of registration provided for in the 1964 Bill was intended to be cheap, simple and effective. Twenty five years later it is clear that the Land Registry measures up to none of these criteria. In fact, the entire system is on the verge of collapse. This has frightening implications for anybody who owns a house, farm, shop, or plot of ground where the title is registered in the Land Registry.
While substantial fees totalling around £7 million are charged for the approximately 80,000 dealings lodged each year and for the 120,000 or so applications for copies of title maps, etc., the core of the problem is that the Land Registry is just not able to do the job for which these fees are being paid. Essentially it is a monopoly created and charged by statute to carry out a commercial self-financing function which is not working. It is failing utterly to provide any reasonable standard of service for its customers and the general public. This will have severe and adverse repercussions for economic activity and employment. That is why we in Fine Gael and many others demand radical change at this stage. It is important that the House should know the present position in the Land Registry.
Firstly, additional arrears are accumulating by the day. At the end of 1988 the overall arrears in transactions totalled 32,000. This figure has increased every month since January and reached a total of 49,000 at the end of October. In fact, 12,000 dealings which have been lodged in the last couple of months have not even been accepted and numbered within the system.
Secondly, it can now take up to 20-24 months to register a plot of ground in the Land Registry and up to six months simply to obtain a land certificate proving ownership of property.
Thirdly, this is a system which obviously lends itself to computerisation. A fair amount of progress was made in the early part of this decade but this has now ground to a halt. The computer expert in the registry resigned at the end of last month. When one is talking about computerisation I think it is fair to say, in case the question of staff numbers is raised, that completion of computerisation would lead not only to efficiency in the operation of the registry but also to substantial staff savings in the long term.
Fourthly, I have to refer to the position of maps in the registry. All the advice I have received is that these maps are deteriorating rapidly. This will, of course, make computerisation even more difficult as time goes on.
Fifthly, the 1964 Act envisaged compulsory registration of all the property in the State. That was one of the basic rationale behind the 1964 Act. What is the present position? To date, 25 years later, only three counties — Carlow, Laois and Meath — have been brought within the ambit of the compulsory registration provisions of the Act.
Sixthly, I want to touch on the position of the management and staff of the registry, all of whom, from my experience initially as a lawyer and latterly as a politician, have shown unfailing courtesy. Because of the present position in the registry, the operation of that system has been described to me as "crisis management of the worst order", while, needless to say, staff morale is one of helpless frustration.
Seventhly, the Act provides that the registry, and I quote from the 1964 Act, "shall be under the control and management of an officer who shall be called the Registrar of Titles who shall be appointed by the Government". The word "shall" is very interesting. Why? A year ago the registrar retired but what has happened since? Nothing. Why has no appointment been made by the Government? This matter has been raised a number of times with the Government but no explanation has been given for this failure. The only credible explanation offered to me is that the position is being left vacant to suit the convenience of a Fianna Fáil Party supporter at present in another position in the employment of the State. If this is correct it reflects a totally cynical attitude——
That is totally untrue.
The Minister will have the opportunity to explain this neglect when he is replying to my motion. If that explanation is correct——
I told the Deputy that it is untrue and he might accept that.
I will wait until I hear the explanation.
I can tell the Deputy that that accusation is untrue.
Unless I hear a satisfactory explanation from the Minister I can only assume, on the anniversary of the retirement of the registrar and the Government not having discharged their obligations under the Act in the meantime, that it is merely a pork barrel approach on the part of the Government——
I told the Deputy it is untrue.
I will await the explanation and deal with the matter again in my reply.
I think it is common courtesy to accept the word——
I want to hear a satisfactory explanation from the Minister. I demand it and the 49,000 people who have been waiting for months for their transactions to be completed in the registry, which is without a captain at the helm, also want an explanation. I demand that explanation and if I do not get a satisfactory one from the Minister I could not accept any protestations about an early improvement in the registry. I will gladly wait to hear what the Minister has to say in this regard and the full explanation which I expect him to furnish to this House. It is outrageous that the registry should be in the frightful position it is now in and that it has been left for a whole year without a chief executive being appointed, as is required by the Act.
From speaking to solicitors I am aware that High Court mandamus proceedings are being prepared because of their inability to register their clients' titles. What are the consequences of the Government's total neglect of the registry? In a country with 250,000 out of work and 1,000 emigrating weekly, is it not time we took stock of our systems and structures which are contributing to this appalling record? In all State procedures and systems which affect investment decisions delay is the enemy which must be avoided. Where it is present it constitutes a negative on the balance sheet as to whether the investment takes place. This applies in very many areas, but none more so than in the Land Registry.
To put it very bluntly, the consequences of the present total disarray in the Land Registry are that economic activity is slowed down, building work is postponed or cancelled, and industrial or commercial projects have been affected. Furthermore, many people trying to establish homes are saddled with the enormous additional cost of bridging finance when they are awaiting their title to produce to the financial institutions. This can add up to an extra £2,000 in the cost of a home.
It is also important that we analyse the limitations of the present system in the Land Registry. At present the functioning of the registry is subject to a number of crippling limitations which totally frustrate the efforts of management to respond to the requirements of the work situation and the demands of the public. No major decisions can be taken in the management and control of the registry by the registrar. The control of staffing, the fixing of fees and the acquisition of equipment are controlled by the Minister for Justice who, in addition, has to obtain the approval of the Minister for Finance.
Furthermore, accommodation is controlled by the Office of Public Works. These cumbersome procedures involve a plethora of civil servants in the Departments of Justice and Finance, justifying their existence by making, or, in most instances, impeding, decisions which should be made in the registry itself. As a consequence, there is a total lack of authority to make management decisions locally and, of course, management's time is wasted in the long process of trying to extract decisions from two Government Departments.
As I see it, the rigidity of the Civil Service staff structures ensures that the registry cannot operate in an efficient, commercially orientated manner and, in particular, hinders the registry from acquiring and retaining particularly scarce skills which are critical to the development of a modern legal technological service.
I referred earlier to the departure of the principal computer expert — obviously I have not spoken to the man — but I am quite sure he was totally frustrated when the computerisation programme ground to a halt. It is that type of person who has had years of training and experience that we cannot afford to lose. What is the solution? It is my belief that to foster job creation the glue in the works of all State systems must be removed. The way to do it in the Land Registry is to radically change the manner in which it operates and to establish the registry as an efficient business orientated semi-State corporation. It is time to remove the dead hand of bureaucracy from the Land Registry and to establish a system which would eliminate a major blockage to job creation and economic activity. In so doing, the customer who pays the piper will be given his money's worth for the fees paid to this monopoly.
There are precedents for the approach that Fine Gael advocate. We now have An Post, Telecom Éireann and Coillte Teoranta, which run the forestry service. All these operations have improved enormously, although they are not yet perfect, since they were removed from direct control by the Civil Service. In making a similar change for the Land Registry it would, of course, be necessary also to include the Registry of Deeds, about which there is not the same volume of complaints, but it would make sense to amalgamate the two. In any event the registrar, if we had one, would not only be the Registrar of Titles but of Deeds as well.
While there has not been the same volume of complaints about the Registry of Deeds, it is evident that difficulties have arisen in recent times. In fact, I had a question tabled to the Minister on that subject last week and he confirmed that there were difficulties and that efforts were being made to clear up the problem. However, from the evidence available to me, the problems in the Registry of Deeds are not as serious as the awful problems in the Land Registry. However, in the changes I propose, the Registry of Deeds should, of course, be included with the Land Registry in the proposed semi-State corporation.
We also have to examine the question of finances. Under the 1964 Act the registry essentially has to be self-financing. I agree with that approach. There is no reason, in its new manifestation as a semi-State corporation, that it should not continue to be self-financing. It should also be mentioned that virtually every year the registry produces a surplus for the Exchequer. Therefore, we are not talking about the problem of money. There is a surplus for the Exchequer year by year. The Minister may claim that instead of a surplus there would be a deficit if account were taken of the Votes of the Minister for Justice on the administration of the Land Registry and the accommodation in the Four Courts complex, but, on the other hand, the Minister should note that money at present wasted in duplication at Civil Service level would be considerably reduced if the Fine Gael proposal were adopted.
Furthermore, the Minister will have to take account of the fact that the registry do not charge fees for Government or ACC work at present. One would balance out the other. The main point I am making is that the problem is not one of finance. Under the new structures which I propose I do not envisage any difficulty about finances. There is also the possibility of a considerable increase in the level of income if an efficient service were available from the Land Registry.
The scale of rejection of applications for registration would be reduced from the present 25 per cent — 30 per cent level and this would eliminate a substantial part of the refund of fees for rejected applications. Immediate implementation of a comprehensive programme of computerisation would simplify procedures and provide an instant public service which would be availed of to an increased extent. There would be a considerable increase in the throughput of applications and the improved efficiency would beneficially affect the flow of conveyancing generally. The possibilities are there to increase income without increasing the level of fees. I would envisage that under the new system any increase in fees would have to be approved by the Minister. Therefore, there are immense possibilities for improvement if the change proposed is made. The registry would be free to recruit its own staff to meet its specialised needs — and that is very important — rather than having to take staff from the Civil Service pool as at present. Staff morale would be considerably improved and there would be a better chance to retain specialised staff in whom a heavy training investment would have been made. Management could plan and budget on the basis of their own perception of the demands on their resources. It would be possible to draw up and adhere to a planned programme of computerisation. There would be a huge benefit following the reduction in correspondence with the registry regarding delays, and I am sure that that alone would free a great number of the staff.
Furthermore — perhaps I am drawing now on my experience when I was Minister of State in charge of overseas aid — I would envisage that if we could establish a properly functioning registry here, it could be a model for registries in the developing world and could, through DEVCo, the semi-State body with responsibility in that area, create and establish consultancy possibilities in the developing world in the future. At the moment, I would not hold it up as an example to the poorest and weakest countries in Africa or elsewhere.
It is probably some consolation to know that recently an efficiency scrutiny of the Land Registry in Northern Ireland was conducted under the auspices of the Prime Minister's efficiency unit in Whitehall. The conclusions of that report confirm the great annoyance and inconvenience to many customers with the system there which was referred to as inflexible, slow and expensive. Of course it is modelled on the same system as we have. Those who had a choice in Northern Ireland rejected the Land Registry system because of the high cost and lengthy delays associated with title registration. There was a conclusion that there was a need for a single system of title registration in Northern Ireland and that the existing machinery for registration there is inappropriate to its present and future needs. As a consequence, a radically new approach was recommended there, one that is somewhat different from the kind of solution being discussed here. Obviously the circumstances are different but the essential point I am making is that they see the need for a radical new approach there also.
We are entering an era of magnetic land cards, digital maps and direct linkage between computers in legal offices and those in the registry. It is clear that there is total incapacity on the part of a Civil Service structure to respond to the challenges of such an era. The present structure has led to a totally unsatisfactory system, with inordinate and increasing delays and well justified criticism from all sources, both internal and external. The proposal I am making to establish a semi-State corporation has the approval of the Incorporated Law Society. I am aware that within the Land Registry there is a general acceptance of the need for radical change and would you blame them? I have no doubt that the long-suffering customers and general public will enthusiastically endorse the proposal.
I wish to make a few concluding remarks before my colleague, Deputy Flanagan, comes in on the motion. I wish to refer to the Minister's amendment. At least he has the grace to accept that there is need for substantial improvements. In regard to the problems in the Land Registry, let me point out that these did not arise today or yesterday. It is over 12 months since the Incorporated Law Society made their proposal. I mentioned that at the end of 1988 there were already 32,000 transactions in arrears and, as I have said, that figure has increased considerably.
Since the urgent general review allegedly being carried out by the Minister which he announced last July, as far as I know, nothing has happened in the Land Registry. No steps have been taken to convass the view of those employed there. I fear that what the Minister is talking about is a smokescreen for a further 12 months of inactivity and indecision during which time quite clearly the problem will deteriorate further. The Minister should decide now that radical change is needed and he should also decide the direction which that radical change should take.
As far as the amendment from The Workers' Party is concerned, that causes no problem. In fact, as I mentioned in my remarks, the motion includes the Registry of Deeds also. Similarly in regard to the Labour Party amendment, that causes no problem. Of course we want modernisation of equipment and facilities and we want adequate staffing levels. I believe the number employed in the Land Registry should be no more and no less than that required to discharge its statutory functions.
Finally, I refer to a very apt cartoon which I saw recently in a magazine about somebody applying for a mortgage. The caption states that if you take your mortgage for the full 30-year period it should give the Land Registry time to process the title deeds. Admittedly, that is stretching things a bit but it indicates the view of the problem that exists in the Land Registry. What I am saying, therefore, is that we must drive a political motorway through the tangled undergrowth of State bureaucracy and free the Land Registry from its constraints. Only in that way can the problems in the registry be resolved.
I urge support from all sides of the House for this motion. I would also suggest that it would very much accord with the philosophy which was enunciated prior to the election by the junior partner in Government, the Progressive Democrats.
Deputy Charles Flanagan is sharing the time of Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.
Perhaps the Ceann Comhairle might indicate to me the time I have at my disposal. I understand it is approximately 15 minutes.
You are due to conclude at 7.40 p.m.
I am very pleased to be in a position to second this motion in the name of my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. I am happy to have an opportunity of contributing to what I would regard as a very important debate on the future of the Land Registry. As a House we can learn of our mistakes as far as the funding of the Land Registry since 1963 is concerned.
I agree wholeheartedly with a discussion document produced by the Incorporated Law Society in November 1988 which stated that the Land Registry and indeed the Registry of Deeds are inappropriately placed under the auspices of the Department of Justice. I think the lessons we have learnt since 1963 should prompt the Minister to have a very serious look at the future of the Land Registry and the length of time it should remain under the direct control of his Department. The purpose of the motion is to change matters and I hope that irrespective of or whether the motion is passed here tomorrow evening it will spur the Minister for Justice into some badly needed action.
I refer to a Second Stage debate on the Registration of Title Bill in 1963 which was introduced to the House by the present Taoiseach, who stated in the course of that debate, in column 1134 the Official Report dated 7 November 1963:
Registration of title is in essence a system of simplified conveyancing. One of its biggest advantages is that the forms used for sales, mortgages, and other dealings are readily intelligible to the layman. The transfer of land becomes, as it should be, a painless, simple and inexpensive process.
I think we can judge those comments in the light of the crisis that exists in the Land Registry at present. Later in that debate the Fine Gael spokesman at the time, the late General Sweetman, when speaking on the principle of registration of title, stated in column 1146 that in theory there can be no possible doubt that it is desirable to have registered land. The late Mr. Sweetman warned: "Whether the practice lives up to the theory is a matter that is to be considered otherwise". The crisis that exists in the Land Registry at present should be sufficient to warrant great change on the part of the Minister. I do not think the late Gerard Sweetman when expressing those doubts in 1963 would have envisaged that 26 years later we would be bringing to the House a motion of the type put forward by Deputy O'Keeffe arising out of the very serious crisis.
It is clear that the practice in the Land Registry leaves so much to be desired that the whole purpose and object of the Registration of Title Act, 1963, has been defeated due to the fact that the Department of Justice cannot provide an efficient Land Registry to meet the necessary requirements. Even in 1963 in the course of the debate in the Dáil, Deputies on all sides of the House spoke of delays in the Land Registry as it was at that time. They stated it was unacceptable that it should take six months or more to complete a dealing.
It was felt in 1963 with the dawning of the age of the photographic reproduction machine that unnecessary delays in the Land Registry would come to an end but, unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. I see no reason, and I ask the Minister to give me an answer to this, that the simple exercise of photocopying a map or a three page land certificate should take six, seven, eight and in some cases nine months to complete. The simple answer must be that the staff of the Land Registry are so overworked they cannot get around to dealing with a simple matter such as issuing a Land Registry map to an applicant who wants it in connection with an application to register a site on which, perhaps, a son or daughter, who may be thinking of getting married, may wish to build a house for which they wish to take out a loan.
The intolerable delays which exist at present in the Land Registry have widespread consequences not only for members of the solicitors' profession but also for vast numbers of people throughout the country. For example, it is not possible for a young farmer to avail of installation aid because the cheque will not issue from the Department of Agriculture and Food until such time as a copy of his or her title deeds is lodged in the appropriate departmental section. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister for Agriculture and Food will not accept a certified copy of a transfer deed together with an undertaking from a solicitor to lodge the title documents on completion of the dealing with the Land Registry some months or years down the road. The fact that the cheque will not issue until such time that the Land Registry have dispensed with all the various requirements and the documents have been fully registered has led to hardship for young farmers.
There are thousands of people, mainly young couples, who are becoming extremely anxious that in relation to their recently constructed dwellinghouse on a building site which they purchased there is a defect in the title because the registration has not yet been completed. They find it difficult to be satisfied with the work of their legal advisers while the papers remain unfinished for years on end.
Banks and other financial institutions, particularly the four main banks, are delegating staff to deal solely with members of the solicitors' profession in connection with undertakings given between three and five years ago to lodge the necessary title documents. Because the banks are finding it so difficult to keep track of what is happening in regard to the lodging of title documents they are now delegating staff solely for that purpose. For many members of the legal profession the inadequacies of the Land Registry have become a nightmare. Day to day office efficiency has been eroded by a constant flow of queries from banks, building societies, clients and public representatives inquiring as to when the Land Registry will complete a dealing long after all the necessary documents have been executed and submitted to a process which was described by the Taoiseach in 1963 as being basically a simple operation. The good name of the legal profession has been undermined because of the failure of the Government to act on the problems in the Land Registry.
I ask the Minister for Justice to reflect on the number of questions, either oral or written, addressed to him or his predecessor, Deputy Collins, during the past two and a half years concerning the delays in the Land Registry. These questions were not put lightly by Members on all sides of this House. The number of people attending clinics and contacting Members of this House in order to seek preferential treatment must be an indication to the 166 Members of this House that the problem in the Land Registry is one of crisis proportions.
Another angle which the Minister might bear in mind is that during the past number of years we have witnessed the advent of the self-styled law searcher who advertises his wares to the general public and members of the legal profession, who puts himself out as being somebody who can for a fee expedite a dealing in the Land Registry as he may be in a position to exercise influence over an examiner and who purports to have inside knowledge as to how quickly one can get a map. His fee of between £15 and £20 adds considerably to the already heavy burden on the hard pressed consumer when it comes to buying a house or indulging in the transfer of property. If we had an efficient system in the Land Registry and if there were sufficient staff employed there would be no need for people to make money out of the inadequacies in the Land Registry at present.
When replying to an Adjournment debate earlier this year the Minister recognised that the Land Registry is a vital cog in our commercial life affecting the agricultural, industrial, building and other sectors of society. He went on to state that it is essential that we clear the four to six month backlog and that everything possible be done to achieve this. I ask the Minister to tell us what progress has been made in this regard and to indicate where he gets the idea that there is only a four to six month backlog. Applications for first registration are now taking three to four years to complete and applications to transfer a portion of land from one folio to another are now on average taking over 12 months. I invite the Minister to investigate this matter with a view towards solving the problem. It is shameful that it takes six months to process a simple application for a photocopy of a map and it is sad that the Minister for Justice can stand over this.
The Land Registry is self financing, yet it takes on average over 12 months to process an application for registration of title at a cost on average of £200 to the consumer. This leaves much to be desired and underlines the fact that the general public are getting a bad service from the Department of Justice and the Land Registry at present. Certainly there is no such thing as value for money so far as applications are concerned.
I do not intend to comment on the Registry of Deeds which in practice is a sister of the Land Registry other than to say that it is an antiquated institution which has managed over the years to preserve an atmosphere more suited to the days of Queen Victoria than the final decade of the 20th century. It is unfortunate that the occurrence envisaged on the passing of Registration of Title Act in 1963 that compulsory registration would be extended to all parts of the country has not happened. It is unfortunate, too, that on the threshold of the nineties compulsory registration in the Land Registry only exists in Counties Laois, Carlow and Meath. It will not be possible therefore to rid ourselves of the cobwebbed way of life in the Registry of Deeds until such time as the necessary orders are made pursuant to the Registration of Title Act, 1964 to extend registration to other areas.
If the Minister does not intend to proceed along the lines envisaged in the motion, would he indicate to the House the positive steps he is going to take to relieve the very serious problems in the Land Registry? I have intended on several occasions to raise this matter by way of parliamentary question. I was disappointed that, in answer to a question on 16 May this year, the Minister stated he had no proposals for the expansion of the role of the local Land Registry office to allow such offices to provide facilities to purchase by way of cash transation maps or land certificates and also to cater for search facilities and the lodging of transfer dealings. I would have thought that by extending the role of the local office the Minister might find some way of alleviating the very serious problems which exist in the central office.
I raised by way of parliamentary question to the Minister for Justice the question of staff and sought details of staff levels on 1 January 1987 and 1 January 1989. I raised this question because in response to an Adjournment debate the Minister stated that there was an increased amount of conveyancing dealings and that these were adding to the workload of the hard pressed people in the Land Registry. How can the Minister stand over that comment and allow a depletion of staff of the order we have since 1 January 1987? On 1 January 1989 there were 388 people employed in the Land Registry — perhaps there are even fewer now — whereas on 1 January 1987 the number was 452. I do not have time to specify the grades of those involved but even the cleaner has been dispensed with. Between 1 January 1987 and 1 January 1989 dealings pending increased so that on 1 January 1989 there were 32,332 dealings outstanding, yet staff levels in the Land Registry have decreased almost by the month.
I urge the Government to give serious consideration to the conclusion reached by the Incorporated Law Society in their discussion document of November 1988 and to the conclusion reached by my colleague, Deputy O'Keeffe, when commenting on the motion. It is ironic that the present Minister for Justice has direct experience as to the workings of a public corporation along the lines of An Post and Telecom Éireann and, perhaps because of his other hat as Minister for Communications, Deputy Burke might be the necessary catalyst prompting urgent action so badly needed on the Land Registry delays. Many hundreds of people are suffering because of Land Registry delays. This matter will not receive headlines in the newspapers or be aired on television, but we should not take from the importance of the Land Registry as an institution. Many hundreds of people, having paid their legal and Land Registry fees, are getting nothing but hardship due to the extraordinary delays in the Land Registry. I hope the Minister will act accordingly.
I immediately correct Deputy Flanagan and I say that he is wrong. There are not many hundreds of people suffering from delays in the Land Registry. There are many thousands of people suffering from delays in the Land Registry.
There are 49,000 at the moment.
It was with that in mind——
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but perhaps he would be good enough to move his amendment.
With the permission of the Chair, I intend to share my time with Deputy O'Leary and Deputy Power and possibly with Deputy Davern, if that is agreeable to the House.
Will the Minister please move amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 1.
to delete the words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
notes that the Minister for Justice is carrying out an urgent general review of the operations of the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds with a view to bringing about substantial improvements in the level of services provided by the Registries.
Is it agreeable that I share my time?
Yes.
I disagree with Deputy Flanagan in relation to the numbers who have been caused distress by the Land Registry delays. With that in mind, immediately on taking up office in July, I informed the House in the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Justice, that I had undertaken a full review of the operations of the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds. That review is ongoing as a matter of urgency. As I indicated to the House previously, including during Parliamentary Questions last week, that review has been carried out with a view to bringing about substantial improvements in the level of service being provided to the general public.
At the outset it is important to outline briefly the objectives of the registration systems in both registries. The registration system in the Land Registry aims at providing a well-ordered, well-indexed and well-mapped record of the ownership of each parcel of registered land. The main object of the registry is to provide in one simple folio a complete and authentic record of the title of each registered parcel of land and of the exact extent and boundaries of such land illustrated by a map.
The object of the registration system in the Registry of Deeds is to protect purchasers, mortgagees and other persons acquiring interests in property for valuable consideration against claims to it arising under unknown or undisclosed deeds. According to the general law of property, the period during which a vendor or mortgagor must show that he and his predecessors were entitled to the property he claims is, normally, about 40 years; and a purchaser or mortgagee is bound by the deeds that have been registered during that period. In contrast to the Land Registry, which deals with land and property which are in process of being or have already been registered, the Registry of Deeds transactions are all in respect of unregistered land and property.
The services provided by the registries are essential to the public interest and I fully accept the point made in the motion that the delays currently being experienced by members of the public and by the legal profession who use the registries are unacceptable. It is my intention to take the necessary steps to minimise delays and to ensure that the services are provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. However, before I can finalise the steps which are necessary, I need to review the operation of the registries and to examine carefully the various options which are open to me, including the option of establishing a semi-State corporation.
Much reference has been made tonight to the fact that the law society referred to the semi-State structure as being the ideal structure in their review of the operation of the Land Registry. Like most other people, including all the Members of this House, their main concern was not the structure but to try to remove the delays for people.
As part of the overall review which I am carrying on at the moment, I visited the Land Registry offices in Setanta Centre and I have had discussions with the personnel involved with a view to obtaining their views on the best way forward.
To give some indication of the size of the operation in the registries, perhaps it would be helpful to mention some figures. The total number of applications annually exceeds 250,000. The Land Registry applications can be divided into seven broad categories, viz. Dealings, Examiners Cases e.g. first registrations and conversion of title, Land Commission cases, copy maps, land certificates, copy folios and instruments and ground rent purchase scheme cases. Requests for copy folios and instruments can be dealt with very speedily. However, applications which require examination of title can be complex and time-consuming — approximately 100,000 applications fall into this category. In addition in the case of many applications queries are raised which can involve considerable correspondence with solicitors and this can be very protracted.
On the delays in correspondence, which was also referred to by Deputy Flanagan in relation to the number of questions put down by Members in the House, and by Deputy O'Keeffe, who said that if the system were more efficient the work could be cut down considerably and there would not need to be the same amount of correspondence for public representatives and others, one of the big problems I have come across so far in the review which I have been conducting and in response to the questions in the House, is that inevitably in at least 50 per cent of cases a solicitor has sent in some documentation which has been found to be deficient and a request has gone back for additional information.
How can there be a query in an application for a map?
I am not saying that that causes all the delay but it is part of the delay process. I am not justifying the delays, which are totally unacceptable, but as part of the delay process that is what is happening.
Small fry.
I can assure the Deputy from my own experience that it is quite substantial.
In the case of the Registry of Deeds the work can be divided into three main categories — registration, negative searches and common searches.
There has been a dramatic increase in the work intake of both the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds in recent years which can mainly be attributed to the upturn in the property market. The number of applications to the registries has been increasing steadily since 1985. In the first ten months of this year the number of Land Registry dealing applications, which comprise the bulk of Land Registry work, increased by 21 per cent over the same period last year. This increase, combined with the staffing restrictions common to the entire public service, continues to have an impact on arrears in the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds.
Without commenting at this stage on the merits or otherwise of the proposal to establish the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds as a semi-State corporation I should point out that serious issues such as whether and how to ensure the present State guarantee of title in the changed situation and how to reconcile that situation with the concept of compulsory registration would need very careful examination. Reconstitution of the registries as some form of semi-State corporation would require legislation which would take a considerable amount of time. Apart from difficulties in drawing up detailed proposals and drafting a Bill, the legislation would not be without controversy.
The difficulties currently being experienced in the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds require urgent solutions. It is my intention to tackle this problem by relieving the immediate arrears difficulties within a structure which in the future will be able to respond speedily and efficiently to the demands which will continue to be made on it.
The resources necessary to carry out the functions of the registries can broadly be divided into three categories —— accommodation, staff and machinery. The accommodation needs are kept under constant review and storage space for documents is a big problem. I am sure I do not need to emphasise the importance of good storage facilities readily accessible for retrieval of files and the importance of storing them under proper conditions. The Office of Public Works are reviewing storage space on hand which can be fitted out and ready for use by the registries next year. This will considerably relieve pressure on accommodation in the Chancery Street and Setanta Centres. That was stressed by the staff in their submissions when I met them.
While the registries in common with the public service generally have been subject to restrictions on staffing numbers, an additional 35 staff were sanctioned for the Land Registry last year, but taking account of further resignations, retirements, and so on the net increase is now only two. I have, however, provided in the Estimates for 1990 for the additional 33 staff sanctioned.
The post of registrar in both the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds, to which it has been the practice to appoint the one person, is vacant at present. I have not moved to fill the post since I took up office. As I was immediately aware of the need for an urgent review of the operations of both registries, I considered that decisions regarding the filling of the post should not pre-empt the outcome of the review.
I want to categorically deny the suggestion made by Deputy O'Keeffe that I was holding this position for any individual. That could not be further from the truth. I am trying to ensure that I do not pre-empt the outcome of the review by appointing a person who may not be the most suitable individual for the new structure, whether that structure is a semi-State one or not.
Will the Minister explain why his predecessor did not make the appointment? The post has been vacant for one year.
I am giving the Deputy my response to his allegation. I accept that there is a major problem but I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the review that is taking place. I am not ruling out a semi-State corporation as the new structure.
What was the Minister's predecessor doing?
Deputy O'Keeffe will have the right of reply later.
I am outlining the position that has existed since July. A programme of computerisation of the Land Registry folio data base commenced in 1982 with a pilot project in the Dublin region. Following an intensive programme of file creation, the Dublin region folios of the Land Registry and recording of application details and movement are now fully computerised. The system provides immediate access to and retrieval of title information through a sophisticated indexing and tracking system.
In 1987 an extension of the system commenced in the western region of the Land Registry, which comprises counties Galway, Clare, Roscommon, Sligo and Mayo. From then on all new folios opened for those counties were computerised, with consequent user benefits similar to those at present available in the Dublin region. These benefits will increase as the database is increased.
In conjunction with the extension of the programme to the western region, an examination of the requirements and long-term strategies of the Land Registry's 25 local offices was undertaken and it is the intention to extend computerisation into other regions as soon as possible.
The Minister's only expert has gone.
The Deputy made great play about the position of registrar and I told him some time ago that his accusation was without foundation. I have given him the background to this matter and explained why I am holding the position vacant. I acknowledge that that is unsatisfactory but there is no basis for the wild allegation he made in the House. I have no doubt that tomorrow night the Deputy will withdraw his allegation; he might do the gracious thing and withdraw it now.
I will deal with the issue.
I am fully aware of the benefits to be gained from a computerised system for the registries. The benefits gained from the system already in place can be illustrated by the example of producing copy folios. Prior to computerisation there was only one original folio per registered property which was available to only one person at any given time for photocopying. With computerisation an unlimited number of copies is available within a matter of seconds resulting in immediate service for people calling to the public counter.
It is planned that computerisation of the data base in the Registry of Deeds will commence at the beginning of 1990. A computerised Registry of Deeds system will provide for immediate access and fast, accurate search facilities. Computerisation is often put forward as a cure all solution. While I recognise that there are many benefits to be gained from a comprehensive computer system, particularly in a high volume retrieval system such as operated by the registries, it is, however, a longer term solution.
In case there is any misunderstanding about this issue from the virginal pure Fine Gael Party, I should like to say that the delays and arrears in the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds are not new phenomena. The figures for arrears in all categories of applications at the beginning of each year show that this has been a problem for a considerable time. For example, at the beginning of October this year the arrears of Land Registry applications in the "dealings" category was 47,448. There has been an increase in applications in the first ten months this year of 21 per cent, but it is important to bear in mind that there was an arrears figure of 29,994 in that category at the beginning of October 1985. The position in the Land Registry has been appalling for years and all parties must accept responsibility for it. As I have already said, there has been a steady increase in the work intake since 1985. I intend to come to grips with the problem. Deputy O'Keeffe kindly referred to Coillte Teorantá and said it was established to deal with the problem in regard to forestry. I should like to remind him that that took place when I was Minister for Energy.
Shortly after taking up office in July I informed the House that I had undertaken a full review of the operations of the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds. That review is still on-going as a matter of urgency and is not being long-fingered. There are a number of options open to me and I believe that all possible solutions must be carefully examined so that in the end the best interests of the public will be served by whatever solution is implemented. I am, however, aware of the need for urgency in finalising my review and I can assure the House that I will not delay in putting proposals to Government in the matter as soon as the review is complete, which will be shortly.
I support the Minister's amendment which notes that he is carrying out an urgent general review of the operation of the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds with a view to bringing about substantial improvements in the level of services provided by the registries. It is well known that the registration system in the Land Registry aims at providing a well ordered, well indexed and well mapped record of the ownership of each parcel of registered land. Of course, it is the delay in doing that that is causing the problem. The object of the registration system is to protect purchasers, mortgagees and other persons acquiring interests in property for valuable consideration against claims to it arising under unknown or undisclosed deeds.
The Minister must be careful before he transfers the duties and functions of the Land Registry to any other organisation.
There is no doubt that the delays being experienced by the public, the legal profession who use the registries and the public representatives are unacceptable. There is an extraordinary delay in relation to applications for first registration of title, better known to public representatives as section 49 applications. The large number of applications to the Land Registry is due to the fact that there has been an upswing in the property market over the last three years. The construction of more and more new houses, where mortgages are tied in, results in additional work for the Land Registry. It also causes problems for purchasers, vendors and the legal profession. Solicitors' applications for rectification of boundaries are being dealt with in a rather slow fashion by the Land Registry at the moment.
I believe that local authority work is given a very low priority in the Land Registry and I ask the Minister to urge the registry to give a high order of priority to local authority work. There are extraordinarily long delays on the part of the Land Registry in dealing with applications for rectification of boundaries and mapping problems, in dealing with registration of titles and applications for transfers of sites for county council cottages. In addition, cases passed on by the Land Commission to the Land Registry appear to have low priority. It is also known that loans approved for housing, small industrial projects and farm development grants cannot be paid for a considerable period, resulting in undue hardship, and the Land Registry is implicated in this in a significant manner. These delays mean that people are put to extraordinary expense paying bridging loans at high interest rates.
The delays are understandable when one takes into account the number of staff employed in the Land Registry in various areas as opposed to the total number of applications annually, exceeding 250,000. This figure is frightening. The Land Registry today could not hope to cope with this work in the same way as it did ten, 15 or 20 years ago. I welcome the Minister's decision to deal with the situation in the Land Registry as fast as possible.
All public representatives have experience of the type of delays that occur in the Land Registry in examiners' cases, Land Commission cases, copying of maps, certificates and so on. It is well worth noting that computerisation of the Land Registry folio database commenced in 1982 with a pilot project in the Dublin region. This was completed and was a success. I note as well that such an exercise commenced in the western region in 1987 and I would ask the Minister to take into account in his review the suggestion that such an exercise should be carried out in other areas as fast as possible. With computerisation an unlimited number of copies could be made available in a matter of seconds, resulting in immediate service for people calling to the public counter. It will, of course, take time to get everything accurately on computer. We know well what the results could be should any errors be put into the computers.
The delays have been increasing and this is due to the increasing number of transactions going through the Land Registry. I do not blame solicitors; they have a tough job to hold the fort between the Land Registry and their clients. I have full confidence that the Minister will formulate proposals for a speedy solution to this major problem, which affects all of us.
Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta. Fáilte anois roimh an Teachta Seán de Paor. I now welcome Deputy Seán Power. I am sure the House would wish me to say he is particularly welcome on the occasion of his maiden speech, which we know will be in accordance with the great traditions of his father, the man whom he succeeded in this House.
Thank you very much, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
This is not a problem that has arisen overnight or during the term of this or the previous Government; it has been with us for years. The mover of the motion, Deputy O'Keeffe, must realise this from his experience as a solicitor. Solicitors looking for copy folio and file plans have to wait up to six weeks. Consequently, there are unnecessary delays in completing sales. I believe that these delays are now reduced. I am not sure how long it takes to complete the registration in the Land Registry but there was a time when it took anything up to 12 months. Particularly troublesome was the transfer of a site for a new house. Loans could not be paid until title was established. As a result high losses were incurred at the very time when an unfortunate couple trying to provide themselves with a house were under the greatest pressure. This problem has now been considerably eased as once the solicitor is prepared to certify that all necessary legal documentation has been lodged with the Land Registry and only registration is awaited the loan can be issued. This is a welcome advance and one which has eased the pressure on many young couples. I must give credit to those involved in bringing this situation about.
I am not certain what the real problem is but possibly it is shortage of staff and old-fashioned manual methods. The medicine I would prescribe is the recruitment of suitably qualified staff. The embargo in recruitment must be lifted in cases like this. I am sure that among the 250,000 unemployed there are some very well qualified persons who could be taken on. This embargo probably caused the boycott or go-slow among the staff which occurred some time ago when solicitors or their agents were not allowed to see the staff or help to expedite business.
Is it not about time computerisation replaced the old-fashioned cumbersome manual methods that are still employed in parts of the Land Registry? In a world of ever improving communications it is unfortunate that these improvements cannot be made in the Land Registry. It would not be necessary to do away with the Land Registry to take these two suggestions on board. I advise the House not to scrap the Land Registry first for the sake of scrapping it. One must have something better to put in in its place. There is no guarantee that a semi-State corporation is the answer to all our ills. The Land Commission created a lot of enemies when they were in existence. They were scrapped but what replaced them? Nothing. As a result, some of the good work that was done by the Land Commission is now being neglected. There is a saying that if one gives a dog a bad name it will stick to him; the opposite is also true, if one gets a good name for getting up early one can stay in bed all day.
I often think that the Land Registry has become a very handy whipping boy for some of the inefficient solicitors operating here who blamed the Land Registry for delays that originated in their own offices. I know that Deputy O'Keeffe is an early bird but I am sure that even he will agree that not all of his colleagues rise with the lark. However, I realise that many of our efficient solicitors believe that delays are at an intolerable level and that a reorganisation of our resources is called for in order to remedy this chronic situation. The Minister has undertaken a full review of the operations of the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds with a view to bringing about substantial improvements in the level of service provided by them. This has to be taken as a very welcome statement from the Minister and I support the amendment.
Let me join you, Sir, in welcoming the new Member's maiden speech. I know what it is like to make a first speech in this House. One wishes one might be in another place.
The Labour Party amendment to this motion reads:
with the freedom to retain and invest whatever surplus it accumulates in modernisation of equipment and facilities, and in adequate professional staffing levels.
I thank Deputy J. O'Keeffe for having communicated to the House the fact that he has no objection to the Labour Party addendum to what is a very important motion.
The Minister has accepted that there is a crisis in the Land Registry Office. He said that the difficulties currently being experienced in the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds require urgent solutions. Because of that the Opposition Parties, by way of amendment and addendum have tried to identify for the House a problem which has been accepted by all sides as having been in existence for an unacceptable time. It was important that the Minister responded positively, as he did, but we hoped he would have gone further, and perhaps before this debate concludes he or spokespersons from the Government side will indicate further action that needs to be taken in the Land Registry to eliminate the delays there.
There is now a major crisis in the Land Registry Office, caused solely by Government cutbacks, particularly by the Government's early retirement scheme, which, because of the sensitivity of the Land Registry, as part of a staff embargo, was particularly unsuitable. The consequence has been a virtual collapse in the services offered by the Land Registry, and enormous delays in completions of house and land transactions. It would be remiss of me as a representative of the Labour Party if I did not compliment the existing staff on their dedication. They work under tremendous stress and are there to help Deputies from all sides and the legal profession. The staff who remain after the numbers have been reduced because of the early retirement scheme are totally frustrated but in spite of that and in accordance with the good practice of civil servants they have continued to carry out their job as best they can.
As a House of the Oireachtas, we have not given them the support they deserve, particularly in the staffing area. In spite of that they meet all our representations with a certain degree of understanding. They know we are under tremendous pressure from land owners, house owners, people involved in property deals, from widows trying to register their own titles to property acquired on the death of their husbands to local authority tenants awaiting proper registration of titles and property purchased and vested from local authorities. At times such applications are submitted in bulk by the local authorities and, as previous speakers have said, do not and cannot possibly be processed with the urgency they deserve.
In all land dealings and house property transfers nowadays there is the dead hand of the banking institutions by way of mortgages, increased mortgages and increasing rates of interest for mortgages, involving further extractions of money while people are awaiting loan facilities. Bridging finance has become a second industry because of the difficulties experienced in registering titles to property up for sale and because registration has to come through before proper loan facilities can be made available.
The Minister for Justice has a direct responsibility to the House in this matter under his Vote and the Minister for Finance has overall responsibility for the level of staff in the public service. In spite of the Minister's efforts, which he itemised in his speech, and in spite of increasing the numbers in the Land Registry since he came to office because of resignations, the net increase in the staff level is only two. That is not sufficient for the type of service we want.
In the middle of this year there was a backlog in the Land Registry of almost 40,000 applications, the highest figure ever and an increase of almost a quarter on the previous year.
It has gone up to 49,000 since then.
Daily this problem worsens.
I did not know there was such a big turnover.
There is a big turnover in land dealings and Deputy Davern should be aware of that. Whether or not we have vested interests in this area, as public representatives we have one cardinal responsibility, to enable our constituents who make legitimate applications to have their property registered and their titles secure so that they can either buy or sell. That responsibility rests with the Government initially in the preparation of Estimates and in the Opposition, whose job is to highlight the deficiencies in the service at any given time.
The average delay in transferring sites as a result of the increased backlog is approximately two years. That is totally unacceptable to the Labour Party. There are 12,000 Land Commission vestings in arrears, and this Government are about to abolish the Land Commission. It takes approximately 11 years to complete any such land registry vestings from the Land Commission. The Land Commission were set up for the purpose of dealing with fragmented holdings and trying to secure adjacent pieces of land so that the farmers can work their holdings properly. Now, because of the need to borrow, all these titles must be properly registered to comply with the law and with banking regulations. Unfortunately, gone are the days when outside the chapel gate on a Sunday land transactions took place with a slap on the hand and a spit in the fist and trust in one another. There were no borrowings at that time, so possibly there was no need to register holdings to the degree necessary nowadays.
Since 1986, according to the Department of Justice's figure, the Land Registry have lost 75 staff, approximately 17 per cent of their total complement. It is now 11 months since the Land Registrar retired, and he has yet to be replaced. I take issue with the Minister's reason for not replacing this most important official. Surely it was not beyond the bounds of possibility or imagination on the part of the Minister that any new registrar might be advised that a review of the operation of the office and his possible functions at the time of his appointment, or in the future, might take place. That is no excuse for the Minister allowing this post to remain unfilled for 11 months.
Hear, hear.
I accept that there may be reasons, but I am sure any new appointee would accept that a review was being carried out and that existing structures in the Land Registry Office might be changed. If he were of the same calibre as the previous office holder, he would be willing to adapt himself to any new procedures the Minister or this House might lay down.
Experienced staff ar leaving in frustration all of the time. Morale in this organisation is at an all-time low. It is at a low because we all subject them to pressure. The media have taken on board the fact that this office is one of the most understaffed, overworked and abused offices in the country. No wonder, then, that there is frustration among the staff. Even if all the new staff were appointed tomorrow it would take six months for them to be sufficently competent to be of any use whatsoever in this office because — and the Minister admits this — this office needs a special degree of expertise to deal with the kind of work we require them to do on behalf of the State.
The Land Registry have been seeking computerisation for five years but only the most rudimentary service has been provided. The Minister talked about the pilot scheme that was initiated in 1982. He says it was successful and that he has extended it to other areas to cover parts of the west of Ireland, in particular, counties Galway, Clare, Roscommon, Sligo and Mayo. We welcome that and we also suggest that the Minister consider the whole concept of decentralisation for this type of office throughout other parts of Ireland where we would be able to contact it at local level. With the extension of a proper computer system to which many legal offices throughout the country would have access, perhaps the Minister would consider decentralisation of the Land Registry. What is most ludicrous of all is that the Land Registry are more than capable of standing on their own feet. They are a viable operation. For instance, this year the office is expected to contribute over £8.9 million to the Exchequer through Land Registry fees and other sources of income. That represents a profit of more than £1 million to the Exchequer. In these circumstances it is clear that the time has come to consider — and this has already been suggested and has not been ruled out by the Minister — whether the Land Registry would be able to operate more efficiently and more effectively if they were not stultified by the bureaucracy of the Department of Justice and, possibly, the Department of Finance. On 10 October last we suggested the establishment of the Land Registry as a commercial semi-State company with their own policy making board and a professional approach to generating business and discharging it efficiently. They could do so always with the overall responsibility of being answerable to the State. That could happen at Estimates time or when a report of their proceedings would arrive before this House for discussion. At all times, although they would be semi-State and autonomous, they would still have a reporting back procedure to this House and we would be of the opinion that that would meet the legal requirement on behalf of the State to properly register title.
Such a move would require legislation and you would find that the Labour Party would be supportive of change in the legislation that could bring that about. The passage of this motion tomorrow would be no guarantee that legislation would follow immediately. However, there is reason to believe that every Member of this House, irrespective of party affiliation, is equally aware of the difficulties being experienced in the Land Registry. All speakers, so far, from Fine Gael, the Government and the Labour Party are of one voice, that we are all aware of the difficulties being experienced in the Land Registry since all of us, individually and collectively, have experienced these difficulties on behalf of our constituents. If there was a free vote on this motion, I believe that Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrat Deputies would support the modernisation of the Land Registry as proposed by the Labour Party and by the movers of the motion as well as by those who have tabled the other amendment to the motion.
There would be little point in taking the radical step of turning the Land Registry into a semi-State company if the consequences were that there was no real change. That is why we have put down the addendum I proposed earlier. We believe the Government should establish general policy for commercial and semi-State companies and then let the companies manage their own operations free of Government or ministerial interference. There are too many examples of semi-State companies who are afraid to make a surplus or a profit because they know that if they do this Government, and any Government of the day, would probably appropriate the profits for their own coffers. This would be the attitude of the Department of Finance.
If the Land Registry are to be allowed to stand on their own feet they must do so in the confidence that they would be able to invest in their own future and out of their own resources. The corollary of that is that we are entitled to expect performance from a properly resourced, properly managed and properly staffed semi-State company. It is on that basis we are supporting this motion. We are seeking the support of others and we welcome the support of the movers of the motion for our addendum, which is not unreasonable. We want to ensure that any changes will give a certain amount of autonomy to the Land Registry, particularly regarding staff and the management of their own affairs. We also want to ensure that any additional money generated is ploughed back into resources within the section to be used for the continuing computerisation programme which is desirable and which is nowadays considered to be the most efficient means of access to folio numbers and any other dealing number we give to the Land Registry. Through the computerisation programme and the data base which would follow they would have immediate access to some of the information we need. We need to be able to tell our constituents where exactly an application is, where exactly it is being processed and how quickly the deal will be processed. Sometimes legitimate deals between people concerning land or houses fall through if they cannot be completed on time and if financial institutions are not prepared to advance money, except under the most expensive form of bridging finance, to people who wish to acquire property; they want to know if it is the legitimate property of the vendor. That is not an unreasonable request and certainly our addendum would lead to the evolution of an office that has a most important role and function in this country and that has a Constitution that is so strong in the defence of the private property owner and in the defence of private property itself that it is imperative that all land dealings would be registered and would never be subjected to question by courts hereafter. Anybody who expends funds on property is entitled to know whether it was a question of right of way, proper mapping etc. In whatever area information is required the Land Registry must be staffed and competent to deal with it.
We could then eliminate the trauma of, for instance, widows who are waiting for proper title to property inherited, a title that their husbands may have achieved outside the chapel gate on a Sunday by a shake of hands in the old days. Unfortunately, those days are gone and now everything needs to be registered. That is the reason that in a period of 12 months the workload has increased by as much as 25 per cent. This must be an indication to the Minister and to the House that the question of the Land Registry is urgent. I am glad the Minister has committed himself to addressing and revamping the registry. He has not ruled out the possibility of making them a semi-State company if, on the advice available to him, he considers this to be the most efficient way of dealing with the problem. I am quite sure — and Deputy O'Keeffe has said this — that they are open to the suggestion that this may be the way forward. Because of the volume of business involved and the fact that the registry are self sufficient by reason of their ability to raise their own funds, they could be efficient and could be a credit to the State.
