Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this speech in context