§ Considered in Committee. [Progress, 25th May.]
§ [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
§
Question again proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to assimilate and amend the Law of real and personal estate, to abolish copyhold and other special tenures, to amend the Law relating to commonable lands and of intestacy, and to amend the Wills Act, 1837, the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, the Conveyancing Acts, 1881 to 1911,
1860
the Trustee Act, 1893, and the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897, it is expedient that—
Mr. FOOTThere is a paragraph of which I should like some further explanation—that which says—
Any receipt of moneys secured by a mortgage which by virtue of the said Act operates as a surrender or reconveyance shall be liable to the same stamp duty as if it were a reconveyance.The Committee will know that it is one of the provisions of the Law of Property Bill, which has occupied the attention of Committee upstairs, that the re-conveyance which has previously been necessary on discharging a mortgage is to be wiped out altogether, and its place taken by a single receipt. Hitherto a re-conveyance has been required when the mortgage has been discharged, and on the payment of the mortgage money the stamp duty payable has been 6d. per cent., a very trifling charge. It is intended to maintain that charge now that the mortgage money is simply paid and an ordinary receipt given. One wonders why it should not be possible to wipe out that sixpence per cent., especially as the ordinary receipt would be given in the case of an ordinary commercial transaction. Why should sixpence per cent. be required to discharge a mortgage debt when in an ordinary commercial debt a simple stamp will meet the case. The Government might very well, in their desire to simplify and expedite dealings with property, forego this small charge, which will very often necessitate the employment of a solicitor and the document being left at the local stamp office, and where there is no stamp office it may have to be sent to London in order that a small stamp may be affixed, and this will mean delay and cost of postage. I think we might be told the amount yielded by this stamp duty. I am sure that the amount brought in is not commensurate with the trouble caused to the parties, and this would be an opportunity for the Government to prove the genuineness of their own professions in regard to cheapening the transfer of property by wiping out this small charge which will be a burden upon the persons dealing with small property.
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Leslie Scott)This Clause leaves the law as it is in regard to stamp duties, and it is not the purpose of this Bill to alter the 1862 revenue provisions appropriate to the Finance Bill. I agree that the charge is a small one, and that not a very large sum is involved. I urge, however, that this Law of Property Bill is intended to simplify and cheapen conveyancing, but not to release any of the charges made by the Exchequer by way of taxation. This is pure taxation, and the question raised by my hon. Friend is one of taxation and not of any reform. As a lawyer, I should be delighted to see conveyancing relieved from all taxation whatever, but the Government cannot take that view, and we are not in a position to deal with stamp duties on this occasion. Therefore I ask the Committee to say that this Clouse, which leaves things as they are, shall not be interfered with.
Mr. FOOTCould the Solicitor-General not meet the case by allowing an adhesive stamp instead of one which has to be affixed at the office.
§ Sir L. SCOTTI will consider that suggestion between now and the Report stage if I can get the Money Resolution now. Hitherto there has had to be a re-conveyance of the mortgage, but we propose to do away with that by treating a receipt as being equal to a reconveyance. The operation of the receipt will be to effect reconveyance, and the only provision of the Bill is to make the stamp duty what in law it would be on a reconveyance. In some cases there may be no reconveyance at all, and then there would be no stamp duty.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONWhat expense is involved to the Consolidated Fund by these proposals?
§ Sir L. SCOTTUnder the Land Transfer Act, 1897, where a title is registered at the Land Registry, there is a guarantee given by the country to the person whose title is registered that his title is good; and when, through any accident in connection with the registration or through any mistake, loss results, an indemnity is given to the person who suffers the loss. Since 1897, the total amount of such losses in respect of which payment has been claimed, is represented by a sum of £300. Under the Act of 1897 there is built up out of the fees paid at the Registry an Insurance Fund against such insurances, and that fund to-day amounts to nearly £100,000. There is, therefore, ample security 1863 against any possible loss which may occur. The Bill somewhat extends the provisions for the indemnity by putting the provisions of the Act of 1897 on a business-like basis. Under that Act, the occasions where the indemnity may be paid have not been very felicitously expressed in words, and this Bill makes provision for amending them in a way which has been agreed upon. I am satisfied, after consultation with the Land Registry officials, that under the Bill there is no prospect whatever of any claim really having to be made on public funds. As regards the last of the three items mentioned in the Resolution, it represents a remote and distant possibility, with which we cannot be concerned for 13 years. In Yorkshire there is what is known as a Deeds Registry—a mere registry of deeds and nothing else. In that registry certain fees are charged, and I believe that the County Council makes a slight profit out of the registry. There is power in the latter part of the Bill to make provision in the distant future for the Lord Chancellor to make an Order extending the system of compulsory registration, should it be deemed desirable at that date. If, after a competitive trial between the two systems extending over a period of 10 years, it is deemed desirable, an order may be made extending the Land Registry to Yorkshire, and then, as a result, the fees now collected by the Leeds Registry would be absorbed, and there might be a small claim by the Yorkshire County Council for the loss of its profits. These are the only financial provisions asked for in the Bill.
Mr. L. MALONEI should not have risen had the Government adopted the suggestion I threw out on the Second Reading of this Bill. They appear to be doing everything in their power to make things as complicated as possible. From what transpired on the Second Reading, counsel will have to be consulted on every matter arising out of this Bill. But we are here to protect the interests of the general public. This Bill is putting more and more money into the hands of the legal profession.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIs it in order to discuss the provisions of a Bill on a Financial Resolution which only deals with a small part of the Bill?
§ The CHAIRMANI was allowing a certain amount of time to the hon. Member to connect his remarks with the Motion before the Committee.
Mr. MALONEThis Bill has 310 pages, and I do not believe that more than a dozen Members of the House understand it. I am one of those who do not, and that is why I want to ask—
§ The CHAIRMANThere are only three proposals in this Resolution, and I must ask the hon. Member to connect his argument with one or other of them.
Mr. MALONEThese paragraphs, dealing with the expenditure of money, refer to expenditure on a matter of which I have not the slightest understanding, nor have a great many hon. Members here, or the general public who are affected by the Bill. I wish to ask before the Bill comes before the House for Third Reading—
§ The CHAIRMANThe Bill has not yet been reported from the Committee. It is not a question of the Third Reading. This is only to enable it to deal with three proposals, as set forth in the Resolution. Any remarks beyond these three proposals would be out of order.
Mr. MALONEI conclude by asking that, when the Bill comes back to the House for the Report stage, this Resolution, and the Bill around it, may be in such a form that they will be understood by the lay Members of the House and by the public outside.
§ Mr. KILEYI desire to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) as to the absurdity of the proposal of which we are asked to approve. As I understand it, if a person pay off a £100 mortgage, instead of obtaining the ordinary stamped receipt, he is compelled to pay for dealing with these documents, possibly in London, which will entail the engaging of legal assistance, the registering of letters, and postage, so that, instead of paying sixpence, he may have to pay 20, 30 or 40 sixpences. Surely in a transaction of this kind, which amounts to a receipt for £100, the ordinary legal stamp should be sufficient. I understand that the Government's intention is to simplify the transfer of land, and surely this is a good opportunity for them to place this matter in the same position as any other transaction 1865 involving the payment of money for which a receipt stamp is required. If it cannot be reduced from 6d. to the ordinary 2d., surely an ordinary 6d. stamp should suffice.
§ Mr. NEIL MACLEANI am one of those who are frank enough to admit that they do not understand everything that is in the Bill. I understand its title, and that is about all. I want to ask the Minister in charge of this Resolution a question with regard to paragraph (c), which says:
There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament any compensation payable under the said Act of the present Session to officers of a local deed registry established for any riding of Yorkshire and to the county council of the riding in respect of any future loss of fees or otherwise.Can he state the approximate sum which may be necessary to meet any claim for compensation in the case of these officers of local deed registers in Yorkshire? It seems to me to be a rather curious method of dealing with this situation that the House of Commons should be asked to give the Minister or the Government what is practically a blank cheque. I do not think it has been stated what is the amount of the fees derived by these officers, nor what is the probable sum that may be required to meet compensation claims made by them. Consequently I think this House ought not to let this Motion go through until the Minister gives some indication of what he expects, because I can quite conceive that the Government believe they will have to meet some compensation claims when they are inserting this Clause in the Motion. They are looking forward evidently to claims being made. Some officers may lose work for which they already receive certain remuneration, and the Government, with that wonderful regard they have for the legal profession, seem to be placing it beyond any possibility of doubt that any individuals who are in any way connected with their local registries are not going to be financial losers by the new Bill that is presently going through Committee. I should like to have some information upon this third Clause, and I hope the Minister will
§ inform the Committee what the Governmen considers might be the approximate sum which would be claimed by these officers or whether he anticipates that any claims are likely to be made, and, if not, what is the reason for the third Clause in the Motion?
§ Sir L. SCOTTThe sum is not ascertained. It is a very small sum, and it is a very remote contingency. The necessity cannot arise unless an Order is made as regards Yorkshire under the terms of the Bill, which cannot be made at the earliest for thirteen years hence and probably will not be made for many years after, and when an Order is made under the Bill a public inquiry has to take place and the Order has to lie upon the Table of both Houses, and a Resolution has to be passed approving the Order by each House of Parliament, and when that is done, if it is done in regard to the county of Yorkshire, the question of any compensation which might then be necessary to the local registry or its officers would be one of the matters which would be dealt with at the public inquiry. In these circumstances, with the assurance that the sum is bound to be in the ultimate resort quite a small sum, I shall ask the Committee to be satisfied with that explanation.
§ Mr. KILEYIs it not possible to obtain some definite information about the question whether an ordinary stamp will do?
§ Sir L. SCOTTI have already said it is to-day what it will be under the Bill. The stamp will be precisely the same in the future as it is to-day. The expense of stamping a document in the future will be no more than it is to-day.
§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENNDo we understand from the Solicitor-General that, although this is a Money Resolution, passing through all the ordinary forms of the House, there is no public money involved this year, or even in the near future? I ask the question because it is of great interest.
§ Sir L. SCOTTThat is so.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 22.
1867| Division No. 127.] | AYES. | [11.48 p.m. |
| Amery, Leopold C. M. S. | Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Barlow, Sir Montague |
| Atkey, A. R. | Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Barnston, Major Harry |
| Barrand, A. R. | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Ramsden, G. T. |
| Bollairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Greenwood, William (Stockport) | Rankin, Captain James Stuart |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Hallwood, Augustine | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Brassey, H. L. C. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Remer, J. R. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) |
| Bruton, Sir James | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Casey, T. W. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston) | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood} | Howard, Major S. G. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Chlicot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W. | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Clough, Sir Robert | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Kidd, James | Seddon, J. A. |
| Cope, Major William | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Lindsay, William Arthur | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. | Sugden, W. H. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Edge, Captain Sir William | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Evans, Ernest | Mason, Robert | Watson, Captain John Bertrand |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bo'ton M. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Morden, Col. W. Grant | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh) | Windsor, Viscount |
| FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. | Neal, Arthur | Winterton, Earl |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wise, Frederick |
| Forrest, Walter | Parker, James | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool) | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Perkins, Walter Frank | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Goff, Sir R. Park | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy. |
| Green, Albert (Derby) | Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Ammon, Charles George | Kiley, James Daniel | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Lawson, John James | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Lunn, William | Sutton, John Edward |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Swan. J. E. |
| Gillis, William | Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Halls, Walter | Raffan, Peter Wilson | |
| Hartshorn, Vernon | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hirst, G. H. | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) | Mr. George Barker and Mr. Foot. |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolution reported.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Mr. RAFFANShall I be in order in moving to leave out paragraph (a)?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have already put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Mr. RAFFANThen shall I not be in order.
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo.
§ Mr. RAFFANShall I be in order in raising my point on the Resolution itself?
§ Mr. SPEAKERYes.
§ Mr. RAFFANThe hon. Member in charge of the Bill should realise that there is a considerable amount of feeling in reference to this particular matter. He has himself admitted that the amount of revenue secured is extremely small. It is evident that if the provision continues there must be a considerable amount of inconvenience. He must be aware that his argument that he is making no change whatever in the charge is apart from the circumstances, because he is altering the whole position on which the charge is working. We would like some assurance that this matter will be considered with a view to action being taken if it is found that the amount of revenue is smaller.
§ Sir L. SCOTTThe position is this to-day, that the wicked Treasury accepts 1869 a tax when you make a mortgage and accepts another when you pay it off. The Bill, which is not concerned with the wickedness of the Treasury, leaves things as they are in this respect. The Bill will not come into force until 1925. Between now and 1925 there will be at least two Finance Bills on which the question can be raised.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat point cannot arise on this Resolution.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI assure the hon. Member that it does not.
§ Captain W. BENNIn Committee this point as to the stamp was raised and I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that before the Report stage he would consider it. That is why I am surprised at this Resolution being taken so soon on Report. When is the right hon. Gentleman going to consider it?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIn my view, it is not in order to raise that point on this Money Resolution. The point may be raised on the Bill in Committee, or on Report.