§ 4.9 p.m.
§ Report stage resumed.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, may we now return to the fascinating topic of the Amendment of 1298 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to the Land Registry Bill. The learned Lord referred to this matter in somewhat extravagant terms of "financial probity", "behaving honestly"—and I forget the third phrase. There is a question of principle involved. I do not think it has anything to do with honesty, so long as one applies one's mind honestly to the solution of the question. Although I would bow with respect and admiration to the noble and learned Lord on matters of law, and indeed on many other matters, I do not think I give him any marks for mathematics or chartered accountancy.
The noble and learned Lord has made two points and they are cognate, and I should like to state them as I see them. It is of course perfectly true that between the year 1900 and the year 1927 the enormous building in Lincoln's Inn Fields which is called the Land Registry building —a very small part of which is now occupied by the Land Registry, the rest I think being occupied by the Public Records Office—was bought out of the fees of the then Land Registry, paid for by those who at that time were transferring land. That building became a Crown asset as long ago as 1927, and, as I say, the Land Registry still occupies a small part of it.
The Land Registry as a continuing business is now being hived off under the new Land Registry Board, for reasons which I have explained and which the House has approved. But the noble and learned Lord comes along and says that as a matter of financial probity a gift, amounting to I do not know how many millions of pounds under this head, ought to be given to the new Board for the benefit of those who are going to enjoy the advantages of land registration and land transfer in the future. I suppose there could be a kind of sentimental plausibility about it if they were the same people who had spent their money transferring land between 1900 and 1927. But I should be very much surprised myself if one of them were the same person. I cannot for the life of me see why the transferors of land in the future, who are, of course, a very worthy class in the community but not a particularly indigent class, should be given a gift out of the taxpayers' money of £150,000 a year, representing a capital value of I do not 1299 know how many millions, simply because people who transferred land between 1900 and 1927 happened to have bought a building which subsequently became Crown property and part of which is now occupied for the purpose of land registration. I believe that if the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, were standing where he used to stand as Financial Secretary to the Treasury—and long will I remember his brilliant and fascinating speeches in another place when he did so—and were advising the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, about his accountancy, he would frankly use terms about his claim that this was an example of financial probity which I would not venture to use in public debate in Parliament. I would advise the noble and learned Lord to consult his noble friend about this topic.
The other point which the noble and learned Lord made is almost exactly the same. He thinks that because the Land Registry made a profit of £12 million—that is his figure, not mine; I am not sure that plus or minus a few pounds it matters very much whether he is right or wrong, so I will not quarrel with him about that—before being handed over, which, incidentally, allowed me to reduce the fees by 20 per cent. last summer, a gift should be made out of taxpayers' money to those who are going to transfer land after the hiving off.
I do not believe that either proposition is tenable. I do not believe that it would be tenable if it was a private firm handing over a subsidiary company to a new owner. I do not think it would be tenable if it were a local authority, and I do not think it is tenable on the basis of public finance. I hope that after that explanation the noble and learned Lord —whom the whole House holds in respect bordering upon awe, and I am the leader of them in this respect—on reflection will feel that this is not a subject on which he need press the House to a Division. If he were to do so, I should be prepared to advise my noble friends to vote against it, not merely on the grounds of sound mathematics but even on the grounds of financial probity.
§ LORD GARDINERMy Lords, I am afraid that I must ask the House to express a view about this. Of course, one can only regard the users of the Land Registry, naturally, as a body; but they have always been told, and indeed Parliament has enacted, that the finances of the Land Registry are to be so conducted—which really means the size of the fees charged—as to secure on revenue account that its expenditure and its revenue balance taking one year with another. I am perfectly certain that if, on it being decided to hive off the Land Registry to a new body on exactly the same financial terms, over the years there had been a deficit, the first thing on which the Treasury would have absolutely insisted before agreeing to the hiving off is that that deficit must form part of the initial debt with which the new Land Registry was to start, and I think that would have been quite right. Whether the users change from day to day is not the point. It cannot be right that, because Lord Chancellors have put up fees too soon or charged too much and there is an existing surplus, that should not be allowed for in the accounts as against what is called in the Bill the initial debt. Certainly in the past, where in times of inflation there has been a deficit for a year or two and then the fees have been put up, the Treasury have, I think quite naturally and properly, always insisted that the increase in fees should provide not merely that they should break even in that year, but that the past deficit should be made up. Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
When it comes to the Treasury charging the Land Registry £150,000 a year for the use of a part only of the building for which the Land Registry have already paid themselves, I should have thought there was no answer to that, and I am not surprised that the noble and learned Lord has not been able to find one. I sympathise very much with him in his position; he wants to get the Bill through, and we all know what the Treasury are. But they really should not be allowed to get away with this one. I must ask the House to express an opinion.
§ 4.18 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
§ Schedule 2 [Amendment of Enactments in Connection with Reorganisation of Land Registry Business]:
§ 4.25 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, T rise to move Amendment No. 6, which I have already explained.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 33, at end insert ("and the following enactments in the Solicitors Act 1957, that is to say, in section 56, subsections (1) and (2).").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 73.
1301| CONTENTS | ||
| Airedale, L. | Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. | Peddie, L. |
| Amherst, E. | Faringdon, L. | Sainsbury, L. |
| Ardwick, L. | Gaitskell, B. | St. Davids, V. |
| Arwyn, L. | Gardiner, L. | Seear, B. |
| Balogh, L. | Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.] | Segal, L. |
| Beaumont of Whitley, L. | George-Brown, L. | Shackleton, L. |
| Bernstein, L. | Hall, V. | Shannon, E. |
| Beswick, L. | Henderson, L. | Shepherd, L. |
| Birk, B. | Henley, L. | Shinwell, L. |
| Blyton, L. | Hughes, L. | Simon, V. |
| Brockway, L. | Jacques, L. | Snow, L. |
| Buckinghamshire, E. | Leatherland, L. | Stow Hill, L. |
| Chalfont, L | Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. | Strabolgi, L. [Teller.] |
| Clwyd, L | Longford, E. | Summerskill, B. |
| Cole, L. | McLeavy, L. | Wells-Pestell, L. |
| Crook, L. | Morris of Grasmere, L. | White, B. |
| Davies of Leek, L. | Noel-Buxton, L. | Wigg, L. |
| De Ramsey, L. | Ogmore, L. | Winterbottom, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Aberdare, L. | Ferrers, E. | Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.] |
| Ailsa, M. | Garner, L. | |
| Amory, V. | Gisborough, L. | Northchurch, B. |
| Barnby, L. | Gowrie, E. | Nugent of Guildford, L. |
| Berkeley, B. | Grantchester, L. | Rankeillour, L. |
| Brooke of Cumnor, L. | Greenway, L. | Roberthall, L. |
| Brooke of Ystradfellte, B. | Grimston of Westbury, L. | Rockley, L. |
| Caccia, L. | Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Ruthven of Freeland, Ly. |
| Carrington, L. | St Aldwyn, E. | |
| Chorley, L. | Harvey of Prestbury, L. | Savile, L. |
| Clancarty, E. | Hawke, L. | Stamp, L. |
| Coleraine, L. | Hewlett, L. | Strathclyde, L. |
| Colville of Culross, V. | Hylton-Foster, B. | Strathcona and Mount Royal, L. |
| Conesford, L. | Ironside, L. | |
| Craigavon, V. | Jessel, L. | Strathspey, L. |
| Craigton, L. | Limerick, E. | Teviot, L. |
| Daventry, V. | Lyell, L. | Thorneycroft, L. |
| de Clifford, L. | Macleod of Borve, B. | Tweedsmuir, L. |
| Denham, L. [Teller.] | Mansfield, E. | Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B. |
| Drumalbyn, L. | Mar, E. | Vivian, L. |
| Eccles, V, | Massereene and Ferrard, V. | Wakefield of Kendal, L. |
| Effingham, E. | Merrivale, L. | Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.) |
| Elgin and Kincardine, E. | Middleton, L. | Wise, L. |
| Elles, B. | Milverton, L. | Wolverton, L. |
| Elliot of Harwood, B. | Molson, L. | Young, B. |
| Elton, L. |
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 2 [Amendment of Enactments and Liabilities to the New Public Authority and Other Transitional Provisions]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 7:
§
Page 29, line 19, at end insert the following paragraph—
(" . Any instrument or other document in force before the appointed day shall, so far as may be necessary in consequence of the enactment of section 3 of this Act, have effect on and after that day as if—
§ The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 7, which is a technical Amendment to meet the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, at Committee stage, as to the absence from the Bill of any transitional provision whereby references in private documents may be construed by reference to the new Land Registry organisation in place of the organisation which existed when the document was executed. Further consideration has, as I promised, been given to it, and that consideration has confirmed that the noble and learned Lord and his informant, who I think is a writer in one of the professional newspapers, were right, and that the matter ought to be attended to. The purpose of this Amendment No. 7, which is the last one, is to attend to it. I think that the draftsmanship is technical.
§ LORD GARDINERMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having given consideration to this point and for moving this Amendment to improve the position.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having drawn the omission to our attention and thus improving the Bill.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.