Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

As someone who has always lived on unregistered land, however, it amazes me that we have such a complex system of proving title.

I agree with another point in Senator Tuffy's contribution concerning lawyers. It is not in the interest of any lawyer that the land law should be so complex. There may be a few nerds in the legal profession who like this kind of work. However, the great majority of people whose time is valuable do not like going back through deeds in an attempt to ascertain who the relevant parties were and whether there is good title shown.

I have spoken to members of the legal profession in the past who were worried that personal injuries claims work would dry up. I have never seen a prosperous society with poor lawyers and I have reiterated the point that things move on and change. It is not the end of the world if a particular line of business dries up because other lines will always open up for lawyers who are inventive enough to change their practices.

I take note of the point made by Senators Tuffy and Dardis regarding the penalties for late registration of stampable deeds. However, in that context the point must be made that until relatively recently it was not necessary to stamp a document unless it was proposed to produce it in evidence or it required someone else to accept it as good title. It was quite possible in the past to convey property and consign the documentation to the bottom drawer. It is only in relatively recent times that the obligation to stamp a document contemporaneously came into its own and penalties were attached to the failure to do so. It is a major source of income for the Department of Finance and the Exchequer.

It might be argued that the rates and penalties are tough, but the requirement that those involved in property transactions must deal with the matter in good time has greatly improved the flow of money to the State. Previously, where cashflow was difficult in the context of a transaction, the last body to hear about it was the Exchequer. Now the opposite is the case and the clock is ticking from the moment the deed is signed. I am not sure whether one month or two months is the most appropriate period of time, but I know the new system is better than the old one.

I wish to address the question of fees raised by Senator O'Toole. It is widely assumed that there is no competition between lawyers regarding conveyancing fees. There are many legal firms offering price competition in this area. Some firms were stating that they would conduct conveyances, no matter how complex, for €999. That indicates very stiff price competition and nobody should be under any illusion in this regard.

The situation is similar in the car insurance market. People should shop around and have the moral courage to raise the issue of the price for the service. As a lawyer, I am aware that some clients are reluctant to raise the question of fees because they assume there is a standard price for certain services. There is no standard price for conveyancing and every fee is, and should be, negotiable.

A colleague in my party said recently that it would be a strange scenario if a plumber hired to repair a burst pipe in Shrewsbury Road made a quick mental valuation of the house before deciding on the appropriate fee. There is a notion abroad that it is reasonable for work to be carried out on a percentage basis but that is not necessarily the obvious means for deciding the price for a particular transaction.

The auctioneering trade must also be taken into account. In that trade price competition is available if one hunts for it. It is only the unsuspecting and the naive who pay standard fees and do not ask for keener prices. The same principle applies to many other areas.

I wish to emphasise that the opportunity for substantive change in land law and conveyancing procedure will arise in the context of the publication of the proposals for a new law of property Bill. That will happen in July. This Bill is modest in its extent.

Senator Cummins asked why the House has been presented with part of a Bill and the reason I am producing the Property Registration Authority provision at a later stage. The answer is quite simple. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been working the proposal for the Property Registration Authority for a long period. The work was delayed because my Department was trying to convince the Department of Finance that the pension overhang for creating a new body and transferring public servants to it would not create the need for a capital payment as part of the establishment of this body. If that were the case, it would have had unacceptable implications for the Exchequer. Therefore, this Bill is effectively a reduced form of legislation because the other proposition was put in abeyance.

However, all of the difficulties with the Department of Finance and its legitimate concerns about the establishment of a Property Registration Authority have now been overcome. We are in a position to go ahead with that proposal, but rather than withdraw this Bill and start anew, we decided that it was best to proceed with it so that the decks are cleared for further reform.

Senator Leyden raised the issue of the relocation of the Land Registry to County Roscommon. That is still the intention and the fact that a new body is being established does not affect that in any way. The people of County Roscommon should be aware that it is still the fixed and determined policy of the Government to move the Land Registry to that county in the manner outlined previously. It will bring valuable employment to the town of Roscommon and will afford many families the opportunity to have reasonably priced housing, schools and a different lifestyle in a county that has many amenities ——