Martin Brady (Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this speech in context