HL Deb 13 December 1973 vol 347 cc1276-85

3.11 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 4 [Further provisions as to the functions of the registering authority]:

LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 5, line 22, leave out subsections (3), (4) and (5) and insert— ("() Upon the payment of such fees as may be determined by the registering authority, those parts of the registers which disclose the name and address of the owner, and the price paid for the property and such other parts of the registers as the Lord Chancellor may direct, shall be open to public inspection.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. What I am particularly concerned with in this Amendment is to seek to end the secrecy surrounding the name and address of the owner of the land. May I say at once that if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would indicate that on Third Reading of the Bill, he would be prepared to accept the Amendment provided that the words, "price paid for the property" were deleted, I should consider accepting that as being as far as we can get in this House.

It still seems to me extraordinary that while anybody searching the rate book can find out who is the occupier of land, even our largest planning authorities have no means of finding out who is the owner of land. Centre Point was referred to at the Committee stage of the Bill. That was an exceptional case because we all know who is the owner of that Centre Point. In the case of so many properties, while local authorities, public undertakers and so on, would want to know who are the owners of land, it is impossible for them to find out.

At the Committee stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor laid great stress on the fact that the Law Commission had not yet come to a final conclusion about this matter. More than three years ago they published a Working Paper but they have had to go over to other and more important matters. Their Report is not uninteresting. They point out in paragraph 72 of the Report that in Yorskhire the ownership of land has been publicly known for something like 90 years, because in Yorskhire alone they have had the Yorkshire Deeds Registry, and that has always been open to public inspection. Dealing with the matter generally, they say, in paragraph 77: … considerable support exists for some relaxation in the existing rules, particularly in relation to the non-disclosure of the names and addresses of registered proprietors. In dealing with financial matters they say in paragraph 81: The majority of those who object to the register being available to public inspection do so on the ground that a registered proprietor does not wish certain financial matters, such as prices, rents and details of mortgages, to be disclosed to all and sundry. If it were possible to exclude these financial matters from public scrutiny we can see no real objection to making the remaining part of the register wholly open to public inspection.

That view is shared by a substantial number of those who have written to us.

It is the object of this Amendment to provide that at least the name and address should be open to public inspection, together with such other parts of the register as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might decide. In paragraph 82 the Law Commissioners say this: In almost every other country in the world registers of titles or of land are fully open to public inspection. Lawyers in these countries find it hard to understand why we retain a private register in this country since the advantages of an open one are to them so obvious. Then, dealing with Scotland, they say: A system of registration of deeds has been in force since the early part of the 17th century. Deeds are registered in the register of Sasines and this is open to public inspection. Both the Reid and the Henry Committees on Registration of Title to Land in Scotland thought that, if registration of title were introduced in Scotland, the register should be open to public inspection.

Under the system in Northern Ireland while registration of title to land operates only in respect of certain titles, that is open to public inspection, and the Law Commission say in paragraph 84: The Lowry Committee on Registration of Title to Land in Northern Ireland have recommended that compulsory registration under the existing system be extended and a majority considered that the register should remain fully public.

It seems extraordinary that where practically the whole world, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, makes no secret of who owns land, we alone should do so. The first proposal made by the Law Commission at the end of their publication is: That on application being made by any member of the public, and on payment of a small fee, the Registry would notify to the applicant the name and address of the registered proprietor of any registered title. My Lords, I beg to move.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

My Lords, it is absurd that in these days it should be impossible to find out who are the owners of land. All sorts of people want to do all sorts of intelligent things in towns in our countryside and are thoroughly frustrated by the great difficulty of finding out who is the owner of a particular piece of land. I well remember that in Wales people from a small town came to me because they were grossly hindered over a piece of land which was getting in a terrible state and whose ownership could not be discovered. I suggested that they seized it, because the only person who could object would be the owner who would therefore have to reveal himself. They were rather shy about doing that and I therefore suggested it be seized in my name. That night an all-Party committee of locals crept out and fenced in the land and put up a notice: "Seized by Lord St. Davids", and left the locality to discover the fact in the morning. Shortly afterwards I received a letter from the real owner of the land asking me what I meant taking this action, thus revealing who he was; otherwise I do not know that we should ever have found out.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, we discussed this in Committee and I promised to look at the matter, and I will promise again to examine it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has to some extent got the wrong end of the stick here. First of all, there are two classes of case where this matter has given trouble, and I have been careful to deal with both of them in what I think is the proper way and not the wrong way. The first is the right—I recognise it is a moral right and it will soon become a legal right as a result of the action I have taken with my right honourable friend—of a tenant to know of the identity of his landlord. Mr. Rippon announced that in the House of Commons, I think in early November but certainly some time ago, and that will be part of his Bill when it goes through Parliament. If under this Bill it had been left to the tenant to find out who his landlord was, he would never had found it out under the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, for a reason that I shall give in a moment.

Secondly, there is difficulty in criminal cases, for reasons which I gave on, I think, Second Reading, but certainly at Committee stage, and that is dealt with in the Bill in the three subsections which this Amendment would leave out, substituting this wider Amendment which I do not think is quite so apt to the purpose. The noble Lord is quite right, of course, in saying that the Law Commission have issued a Working Paper on this subject. They issued a Working Paper in which the professions were to be consulted, and two alternative solutions, neither of which is identical with that now proposed by the noble Lord, were put forward. It is equally true, as I told the House on Committee—I expect the noble Lord knew it already—that this had been postponed because I had to ask the Law Commission to transfer their attention to matters like gazumping, which I thought carried a higher priority.

The matter, at present, stands like this: that the two professions are hostile and the matter will prove to be controversial, and I suggested to the noble and learned Lord on Committee—and I think it was not an unreasonable suggestion—that he should pursue the procedure which he himself has constantly recommended when he was dealing with, for instance, the proposals of the Law Reform Committee or the Criminal Law Revision Committee, in allowing the Law Commission procedure to work itself out. After all, he is the father of the Law Commission, and I think he has some reason to be proud of his offspring. I suggest that it would be better if he gave his offspring a chance to carry out its natural functions without interference.

The fact is that this proposal, as it stands, would not achieve the purpose which the noble and learned Lord has in mind; and, in fact, nothing which would be within the ambit of this Bill would. I have already pointed this out in relation to landlord and tenant. In fact, if anybody wished to conceal the ownership of land he would simply put it in the hands of trustees or a nominee, and all you would see on the register would be the name of the trustee or the nominee. I concede at once, that there are reasons, or may be reasons, why the true owners of land ought to be capable of identity, but this Amendment will not achieve it. The only thing that this will achieve is that the person who appears on the register can be seen. This is a very bad way of achieving that object, if it be desired to do it.

It would have the side effect, as I pointed out in Committee, of obstructing some of the purposes of the Bill, the main purpose of which is to allow the Land Registry to get on with the process of registration. Less than half the land at the moment, viewed on a population basis, and rather less than one-tenth of the land in this country (by which I mean in England and Wales) on an area basis, is registered. The purpose of this Bill is to encourage registration. The effect of the Amendment would be to divert extremely scarce manpower to carrying out the purpose of letting people know who the nominal owner of the land is without telling them either who the beneficial owner of the land is or, I think—alhough I am a child in these matters—who the various other people with interests in the land are, such as the tenants. So it would be a fairly useless operation.

There is one other point. I myself find the obligation to disclose the exact financial transactions, which are referred to in the latter part of the Amendment, objectionable as well. It would be only those who chose to enter the financial transactions, which are not universally in the Land Register, who would reveal them; and those who wished to hide them would still be able to hide them. Those who have entered them have entered them in reliance on their present confidentiality, so they would be penalised for having done something on the faith of the law which is now to be removed. I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that this part of his Amendment would not be one for which he would die in the last ditch (to use a metaphorical expression), but I think that that objection still applies to the proposal as it stands. I wish to make it absolutely plain that I am not in the least hostile to a proposal that the true owner of the land should be known, or knowable, in any given case; but to select registered land, which is less than a tenth, area-wise, of the land in the country for different treatment from the rest seems to me to be confusing and probably unfair.

I suggest that the Law Commission should be allowed to get on with their work. As I say, I am not opposing this as a principle; on the contrary, I think if a workmanlike way of considering this matter were put forward, and if it were a matter of widespread consent to introduce a workmanlike measure on those lines I am far from saying I would oppose it. I might be one of the first to support it. I would ask the noble Lord to think of this issue again. I will promise to think of it again in the meantime, and I will consult the Registrar on the subject further, although I did carry out my promise to do so before. At the moment, I do not think that this Amendment will do although it may be that something else will.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, I think that has been a useful discussion. It is clear that if I omitted from the Amendment the words, "and the price paid for property", the noble and learned Lord would still not be prepared to accept the Amendment. I cannot, I am afraid, accept all of his arguments. I cannot, any more than I could at the Committee stage, accept that there would be something wrong in treating differently those who are registered from those who are not when he himself, by this Bill, is providing that the Director of Public Prosecutions can be given access to the Register only, of course, in the case of those whose title is registered. I should have thought that exactly the same argument applies.

The noble and learned Lord has asked me to leave this matter to the Law Commission without interference. That is a somewhat strange phrase, because, of course, the Law Commission would have completed their report on the subject by this time if the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, had not interfered with them, prevented them from doing so and directed their attention to other matters. My Lords, I do not think I can carry this further to-day. As the House knows, there is a Private Member's Bill in the other place directed solely to this question of the publicity of the Land Register. In any case, this Bill has to be considered in the other place. I do not think, therefore, that I can carry the matter any further, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 [Functions of the Chief Land Registrar]:

3.29 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2: Page 7, line 2, leave out ("under the Land Registration Act 1925 and the rules made thereunder").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be convenient for me to discuss my Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6, together. I hope that I can persuade the House that these are purely drafting Amendments, but I should like, for the sake of candour, to tell the House what they are about. There is a Committee which deals with the remuneration of solicitors for uncontentious business. It is a Statutory Committee which exists under the Solicitors Act, and the Chief Land Registrar is a member of it for the purpose of the business which comes within his jurisdiction. If these Amendments were not passed, instead of his continuing to be a member of that Committee for that limited purpose, the whole new Land Registry Board would be a member of the Committee for that purpose; and that is thought inappropriate. I therefore beg to move. Unless the noble and learned Lord or any other noble Member of the House thought there was something to discuss, I do not think there is any question of principle in it at all.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have explained Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 5, after ("jurisdiction") insert ("under the Land Registration Act 1925 and the rules made thereunder").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No.4.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 10, leave out ("of that Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [The initial debt]:

3.31 p.m.

LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 10, line 13, at end insert— () The initial debt shall be arrived after crediting the registering authority with the amount by which the income of the existing Land Registry has, on the vesting date, exceeded its expenditure: and no rent shall be charged by the Government to the registering authority for a building the cost of which has already been paid for in full out of fees charged to the users of the Land Registry.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5. I cannot promise not to ask the House to express a view on this matter because this Amendment relates to a simple question of financial probity. The Land Registry has existed for many years and its financial remit has always been to ensure that its revenue and its outgoings balance, taking one year with another. It is intended that the same shall apply to the hived-off Land Registry, because Clause 9 of the Bill provides: It shall be the duty of the registering authority so to conduct its affairs as to secure that, taking one year with another, its revenue is not less than sufficient to meet its outgoings properly chargeable to revenue account. It has not in some respects been very successful in the past, because experience has shown that Lord Chancellors have been too cautious and have either put up fees too soon or put them up by too great an amount—though I am sure that all Lord Chancellors have done their best. Therefore, there came a time when the fees of the Land Registry users had accumulated a surplus, and this surplus, whether properly or not, was used by the Land Registry to build its buildings in London—the Land Registry. It is common ground that that building was built entirely out of fees paid by the users, which were supposed to cover only outgoings.

Secondly, over many years a surplus was built up, which in my time was some £4 million—again, an overcharge on the users of the Land Registry. And owing to the extraordinary number of purchases and sales of property, and the inflation of property values, in the last two years the revenues exceeded the expenditure by £8 million. I should have thought it was a matter of simple financial honesty that, if the Land Registry is to be hived off, in the statement of accounts between it and the Government the Land Registry should be given credit for what by now must be about £12 million. It is going for provincial properties, and so on, to assume certain debts, and the initial debt is laid down, though not of course quantified, in the Bill. Naturally, each year where there was a surplus it was paid into the Consolidated Fund. But nobody is asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to draw a cheque on the Consolidated Fund or to pay anything out of it. This is a simple matter of accounts. That is to say, in arriving at the initial debt which under the Bill the new Land Registry is to assume, is it not clear that financial probity necessitates credit being given by the Treasury for this £12 million?

The next point relates to the building. As it happens at the moment, with computerisation and one thing and another, the Land Registry requires to use only one-third of the Land Registry building. What is proposed in effect by the Bill is, first, that the Treasury should seize the two-thirds of the Land Registry for itself, without paying a penny for it, although the whole building was built by the fees of the users of the Land Registry. Secondly, as to the part which the new Land Registry is to continue to use—the one-third—not only is the new Land Registry not getting its own building for nothing, but it is being charged by the Treasury £150,000 a year for the right to use the premises which it itself built entirely out of the fees of the users of the Land Registry.

I can well understand, as I made plain, the desire of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to have this Bill, the only point of which is to provide that in future the employees of the Land Registry will not be civil servants; and then be will not be tied by promises by budding Prime Ministers; he can go straight ahead with the full campaign to extend land registration to the whole of the country. But in effect what appears to have happened is that the Treasury have insisted that, if he really wants to do that, it is going to make it financially extremely stringent for him and for the new Land Registry to do. Well, we all know what the Treasury is. I should have thought that if a financial chicanery of this kind had been committed by somebody in the City of London, he would not last there very long. It is, I suppose, the responsibility of all Parliamentarians to ensure that Governments act honestly. I do not see how it can possibly be right if this body, which in the past has been told to operate simply on the basis that it breaks even as to revenue and expenditure taking one year with another, when it is hived off, is found, erroneously at the expense of the users of the Land Registry, not to have fulfilled its statutory duty because it has made a profit of £12 million.

Clearly in the accountancy—and it is only a matter of accountancy—in arriving at the initial debt which the new Land Registry is required to assume, it should be given credit for that figure; and also, I should have thought, for at least the cost of building the Land Registry. But when it is found, further, that not only are they not getting any credit for that, but the Treasury has the impertinence to charge them a rent of £150,000 a year for the privilege of occupying the building which they themselves built out of the fees of the users, this seems to be morally indefensible. I beg to move.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I think my noble friend wishes to make a Statement, so I will not proceed with the debate now.