HL Deb 05 March 1985 vol 460 cc1262-74

6.42 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill is short but unfortunately highly technical, and therefore my speech is longer than I would have wished. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with the situation with which a buyer or mortgagee, and the professional adviser of the buyer or mortgagee, have been faced since the decision in its judicial capacity of your Lordships' House in the case of Williams and Glyn's Bank v. Boland. That situation has obtained since 1981. In the case, the Appellate Committee held that a bank which had lent money on the security of a house was bound by the interest of the sole registered proprietor's wife in the house and was therefore not entitled to vacant possession, which the bank had sought to obtain in order to sell the house and recover the debt. Although the proprietor's wife was not on the registered title, she had made a substantial contribution to the purchase price of the house and therefore had a property interest in the house entitling her to a share in its value. This interest, together with the fact that she was exercising her right of occupation, gave her what is called an overriding interest within the meaning of Section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925.

As I have said, the Boland case was concerned with a wife, and, as will be seen, this Bill does not remove the privilege of either husbands or wives; they are excepted from its provisions. But unfortunately the importance of the Boland case was that it established beyond doubt in the minds of conveyancers generally that a prudent buyer or mortgagee would have to make inquiries in any transaction involving a dwelling-house to establish whether any person in occupation, whether or not a husband or wife, has a beneficial interest in the property. Therefore, this Bill deals with occupiers who arc not husbands or wives. The principle of the Boland case applies with equal force in respect of any equitable and beneficial interest. It does not matter whether or not the person with the equitable interest is related in any way to the registered proprietor. Under the Boland case such an interest becomes an overriding interest by virtue of the mere fact of the occupation.

As a result of the Boland case it has therefore become an established practice, when inquiries are made before a house is purchased or mortgaged, for the purchaser or mortgagee to make inquiries about any person who may be in occupation of the premises. The nature and extent of these inquiries can be illustrated by the questions asked in the most recently produced set of standard inquiries in conveyancing. The questions run as follows: (a)(i) does the vendor know of any person having adverse rights over the property? (ii) if so, how are these rights exercised? (b)(i) how many persons inhabit the property? (ii) who are they? (iii) what age? (iv) has any person other than the vendor any equitable or registrable right over the property? (v) if so, please confirm that all persons having such rights will be parties to the contract. (vi) please confirm that all persons in present occupation of the property agree to vacate on completion". Even this elaborate series of questions cannot be guaranteed to reveal all possible interests, and there is always the possibility of a person with an interest entering into occupation between the time of the inquiries and the time the transaction is registered.

Banks and building societies lending on the security of domestic property are forced to inquire into the private lives of prospective borrowers when they have no wish to do so. Such inquiries are not only time-consuming but also embarrassing. The need to make these inquiries causes both delay and expense. I doubt whether it is easy to arrive at an accurate figure of the annual cost, but I believe that the Law Society has estimated that it runs to as much as £7 million a year across the country.

The effect of the Bill, if passed, will be to simplify all domestic conveyancing transactions. The Bill provides that, for transactions which occur after the 31st December 1985, it will be necessary for a purchaser to make inquiries of one class of occupier only, and that is the wife (or husband) of a sole proprietor or sole estate owner, or, in the case of a first registration or the mortgage of property, the husband or wife of the sole proprietor's or sole estate owner's immediate predecessor in title. The mere fact of occupation by any other class of occupier would no longer, when combined with a beneficial interest, in itself confer an overriding interest in registered land. Other equitable co-owners of this kind—for example, a mother-in-law or a brother—would therefore need to protect their interests by registration. After all, that was the object of the Land Registration Act 1925.

By thus limiting the range of the conveyancing inquiries needed, the Bill would seek to cut down on the number of individual inquiries and the time and cost that they entail. If the Bill is enacted, all domestic conveyancing transactions will thus be made simpler. The preliminary inquiries will only need to establish, in the case of a sole registered proprietor, whether the proprietor is married and, if so, whether the wife or husband is in occupation. The registered owner's husband or wife may then either be joined as a party to the transaction or be asked to waive any rights in the property for the purposes of the transaction. Experience has shown that little difficulty arises in practice in establishing the fact of occupation by a husband or wife. It is the other classes of occupier which create the difficulties, and the consequent delay and expense.

The Bill will also deal with occupation by an equitable co-owner of unregistered land. Here, owing to the differences in the law relating to registered and unregistered land, a different approach has had to be taken. The outcome is the same for purchasers, mortgagees and the husband or wife who is an equitable co-owner. However, it is true to say that other equitable co-owners will be in a less secure position because the land is unregistered and there is no effective way of registering such an interest.

There are two substantive clauses only in the Bill. Clause 1 deals with registered land. Paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of Section 70 of the Act of 1925 provides that rights of certain persons in actual occupation of the land shall be "overriding interests". Clause 1 makes that paragraph subject to a new section, numbered 70A. That section quite simply excludes from Section 70(1)(g) the equitable rights of a person in actual occupation of land which consists of or includes a dwelling-house, unless the person is the husband or wife of the sole registered proprietor, or (in certain circumstances) of his immediate predecessor in title as sole proprietor or sole estate owner. The equitable rights will have been acquired by the husband or wife contributing in some way to the value of the house.

The Bill is intended to take effect on 31st December 1985. After that date it will be necessary for any class of occupier, other than husband or wife, with an equitable interest to protect their rights of occupation by registering a caution on the register. Indeed, if they so wish, such an interest may be registered now. Accordingly, if the Act comes into force it will only be necessary for a buyer or mortgagee to make inquiries about the husband or wife of a sole registered proprietor and take note of any entries on the register.

Clause 2 deals with unregistered land. As I have said, it operates in a somewhat different way from Clause 1 because the effect of occupation by an equitable co-owner of unregistered land is to fix any prospective purchaser or mortgagee with notice of the occupier's interest. If the Bill is enacted after the 31st December this year the mere fact of occupation by an equitable co-owner will no longer be effective to give notice of their interest, unless the occupier is the husband or wife of a sole estate owner or, in the case of a mortgagee, his immediate predecessor in title.

There is one further matter which probably requires some explanation. This is that the Bill is only concerned with land held by a sole registered proprietor, or, in the case of unregistered land, by a sole estate owner. If there is more than one person registered as proprietor or on the title deeds as estate owner, a purchaser or mortgagee has no need to interest himself in the existence of any equitable owner. That is one of the mysteries of our land law. This is because Section 27 of the Law of Property Act 1925, enables him to deal with the legal estate owners, where there is more than one, without regard to any equitable interest. The equitable co-owner's remedy lies only against the registered proprietor or against the estate owner, as the case may be. Thus, if the husband's name alone appears on the register or in the deeds, his wife's interest will continue to be protected. On the other hand, if the husband is joint legal owner with his father, for example, the Bill will not extend protection to the wife's interest, which should be registered by way of a notice or caution.

The Bill will go some way towards simplifying the process of conveyancing, and thereby reducing its expense. It is true that the Bill will remove the automatic protection which some equitable co-owners enjoy at present, but most will be able to protect their interests by registration. The Bill will preserve the protection afforded to the equitable interest of a husband or wife which is, I believe, justifiable because husbands and wives do not go into arrangements over the matrimonial home at arm's length, whereas it is not unreasonable to expect others to take advice before entering into a major commitment by way of a contribution to the cost or value of a house.

It is of course a matter of judgment where the line is to be drawn between the simplification of inquiries in the greater number of conveyancing transactions, and affording protection to the unregistered equitable interest of co-owners. I hope the House will agree that the Bill gets that balance right and I accordingly ask this House to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

6.55 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, the pleasure that I feel (accompanied, I know, by the pleasure of all your Lordships) at seeing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor back again on the Woolsack, obviously restored to his inimitable strength and capability, is unfortunately joined on this occasion with the rather qualified welcome which I have to give to this Bill. I wonder whether your Lordships may bear with me if I go through a few technicalities in order to try to bring out the points that are worrying me and others—and when I say "others" I am talking not only about the members of my profession but also those who are concerned with the rights of members of a family other than the legal wife.

If I may just commence by saying that registered land—and it is perfectly true that at the present moment most of our land is registered land—is governed by the Land Registration Act 1925. Section 70(1) of that Act reads as follows: All registered land shall, unless under the provisions of this Act the contrary is expressed on the register, be deemed to be subject to such of the following overriding interests as may be for the time being subsisting in reference thereto, and such interests shall not be treated as incumbrances within the meaning of this Act". There then follow a number of examples of those matters; and then in paragraph (g) of that subsection we see this: The rights of every person in actual occupation of the land or in receipt of the rents and profits thereof, save where enquiry is made of such person and the rights are not disclosed". In regard to unregistered land, there is a section, Section 14 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which, although worded differently, has really the same practical effect. That section reads: This Part of this Act shall not prejudicially affect the interest of any person in possession or in actual occupation of the land to which he may be entitled in right of such possession or occupation". That means—and it is not complicated—that if somebody had contributed towards either the purchase of the house or indeed to the improvement of the house or the extension of the house and was in occupation, then a mortgagee or a purchaser could not defeat those rights. I stop there.

The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to a case which is very well known in the legal profession. It was decided in 1981 and it was Williams & Glyn's Bank v. Boland. That made it abundantly clear. It went up to your Lordships' House, and made it abundantly clear that that meant just this: that anyone who was in that position of having made a contribution as I have said, and was in occupation, had rights without any registration—because, as I will explain in a moment, none was possible: it was an overriding interest in the case of registered land and it was impossible to register anything in respect of unregistered land. They had rights against the purchaser or the mortgagee.

I know very well that when this came to your Lordships' House the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who I am so glad to see in his seat tonight, made it abundantly clear that the judgment of the court in Boland meant not only that a wife was protected, but that other people occupying and having contributed to the house were also protected.

We debated the Law Commission's report on the effects of this case of Williams & Glyn's Bank v. Boland and I ought; before I deal quickly with what was said when we debated that report, to refer to the recommendations that were made by the Law Commission in regard to that case. I am reading from paragraph 120 on page 49 of Cmnd. Paper 8636, and the Summary of Conclusions was as follows:

  1. "(i) The present law as to co-ownership of land, as declared in Williams & Glyn's Bank v. Boland, to some extent improves the position of co-owners and thus promotes the social policy of protecting the interests of wives in the matrimonial home.
  2. "(ii) The protection given to co-ownership interests, however, is inadequate for co-owners and detrimental to purchasers and lenders. The law applicable is productive of uncertainty and thus prejudices the security of titles and the ready marketability of land and increases the complexity and cost of transactions.
  3. "(iii) The law is in need of reform for the purpose of improving the means by which co-ownership interests are protected against, and made known to, purchasers and lenders and by which the existence and extent of such interests are established".
Following upon those conclusions, the Law Commission—and we always pay the greatest respect to their recommendations—first, recommended, that the interests of co-owners, purchasers and lenders should be protected by means of the existing systems of registration; and, secondly, dealt with the matrimonial home and the position of married co-owners by saying that there should be a special consent requirement. Their third recommendation was a scheme of equal co-ownership of the matrimonial home and, fourthly, there was a recommendation that the above should be implemented by legislation incorporating a co-ownership Bill which they attached to their report.

I am not going to deal with the co-ownership recommendation that was made by the Law Commission, except to say that we had a debate upon the recommendations of the Law Commission on 15th December 1982 and many of your Lordships felt that this should be adopted as a package, which is what the Law Commission wanted. Some of us—I happened to be one of them—very respectfully submitted that, possibly, co-ownership would not go through very easily and that it might be a very good idea to deal with some of the other matters relating to registration which would protect those who had these overriding interests; namely, that anyone who was in occupation of the house and who had contributed should be able to register and therefore would be protected.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, is the noble Lord not being too modest? He was valiantly standing alone in trying to pull the conveyancing plums out of this report. Every other noble Lord who spoke in that debate pointed out that this was a package deal.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right. I did not feel that I was very valiant at the time, but it is kind of him to pay tribute to my courage. But the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in replying to the debate, made it perfectly clear that, from his postbag at all events—and I remember his reference to it—the business of automatic co-ownership was by no means a matter that was widely wanted and he had his doubts, and said so, about whether that was an acceptable proposition.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord. What he is saying about me is quite right, but I should like to place it on record, although I have not looked up Hansard, that I think that my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches is mistaken in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was alone. I have a very lively recollection of a noble Lord somewhere below the gangway on the Conservative side of the House, who took the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, if I may intervene again, I think that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is considering two different debates. I think that he is referring to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, who intervened when I introduced the co-ownership Bill. I am glad to see that my noble and learned friend nods his head in agreement. When it came to the debate, I pointed out that I had been able to come to an accommodation, with the agreement of the Law Commission, with the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, on that matter. I think I was not unfair in saying that in the debate in December 1982 the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, did indeed stand valiantly alone.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, if I did stand valiantly alone, and I believe that I did, except, as I said, for the somewhat kind words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—to which I have referred in the Official Report and I can therefore vouch that what I said about his speech was an accurate paraphrase of it—when he expressed his concern at the provisions of the co-ownership Bill and the likelihood of its success, I certainly want to take no more credit for that speech on that occasion. But I should just like to say that we are in this Bill looking at the result of Williams & Glyn's Bank v. Boland without the co-ownership provision of husband and wife and that is an accurate thing to say. If I therefore said that I thought that that was the likely outcome, at least my prophecy, for once—and I wish that I could quote many more examples, but I cannot—appears to have been correct.

But the point that I want to make is this. In the course of the speech that the noble and learned Lord made on that occasion, he said this—and I want to remind him of it—at col. 660 of our deliberations on 15th December 1982: But I would say—and I think this has a good deal of relevance to the subject—that matrimonial co-ownership is coming and has come to a quite extraordinary degree. I think I am right in saying that at the time when the original Law Commission report was put forward about one-half of those couples who entered the matrimonial state registered their houses or homes in joint names. The proportion now, I am told, is 75 per cent. The question which one really must ask oneself in the light of that fact is how far it is prudent or socially desirable to legislate for the remaining one-quarter". Then I ought to quote this from the bottom of col. 662: While not wishing to minimise the difficulties created by the Boland case, or the prejudice that might result from its reversal, it must be said that it has been part of our law for over a year now, and that in fact conveyancers have come to terms with it—and come to terms with it fairly well. Contrary to their predictions, the world has not come to an end as a result of the decision in Boland in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords". [Official Report; 15/12/82.] If that meant anything at all, it meant this. It meant that we had time to consider the position and all the problems that arose in regard to matrimonial homes and the interests of other co-owners. If 75 per cent. of married couples had their property in joint names then, I assure your Lordships as a practising solicitor that the percentage has now increased. I should have said that it is somewhere around about 80 per cent. So when we are trying to protect wives here we are dealing with a minority of cases because, in the main, they are protected already.

I must tell your Lordships that the Law Commission is sitting at this very time and is looking at the question generally of overriding interest and the situation of protecting co-owners in the matrimonial home. Although the noble and learned Lord thought there was no urgency then—and if there was no urgency then I can assure him that conveyancers have come to terms with this, and I agree with him that it would make conveyancing very much easier if the Bill were to be passed; far fewer inquiries would have to be made, it is absolutely true, on behalf of a purchaser or mortgagee. Before the Law Commission has had a chance to report on overriding interest—and it has gone very far, I am informed, in its discussions and has even issued an interim paper on this subject—we have come forward with a Bill which will now destroy the rights that grandma had in the home having decided, because she had been invited to live in the home, that she was going to contribute towards the cost of extending the home; of the mother-in-law who has come to live in the house and who originally did contribute towards the cost of the house; and of the common law wife. A case was mentioned, again, I believe, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce—if I am wrong in that recollection I know he will correct me—of injustice (the law, it was said, had to be altered by Parliament; the courts could not do it) to a common law wife who had lived as a wife for some 19 years with, as she called him, her husband. All the rights have now been removed.

In the case of registered land, you are told that it can be put right by registering a caution. The people about whom I am talking would not know about registering a caution—I am talking about the grandma, the mother-in-law, and possibly the common law wife. But even that, as the noble and learned Lord perfectly fairly said, only applies to protection in registered land; in unregistered land there is now to be no protection at all. This in regard to a Bill to cover a position which the noble and learned Lord—if I may quote him again—talked about in 1982 as being a position that one could live with, saying that the world would not come to an end as a result of the Boland case.

The last thing I shall do is quote from the Nineteenth Annual Report, 1983–1984, of the Law Commission, which was ordered to be printed as recently as 27th February of this year. At paragraph 2.35 on pages 22 and 23 of that report it says—this is my last quotation and I shall then sit down: Attention is being given to problems relating to family property and in particular to the ownership and occupation of the family home. With regard to ownership issues between married or unmarried partners, we have already referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Burns v. Burns"— if I may say this in parenthesis, that was the case in which there was a common law wife who had lived for some 19 years with the man whom she called her husband— In that case"— I am sorry but I did not realise that the report goes on to refer to that case and explain it— the plaintiff had lived with the defendant for 19 years as man and wife but at the end of their relationship had no rights in respect of their common home. As Lord Justice Fox observed., 'the unfairness of that is not a matter which the courts can control. It is a matter for Parliament'.". It looks as though it was the Lord Justice Fox who made that comment and I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce.

Lord Wilberforce

My Lords, I think I made a similar comment in Boland.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that. The report goes on: With regard to the courts' powers to adjust the parties' respective rights of occupation, we have noted the observation of Lord Scarman in Richards v. Richards that 'the sooner the range, scope and effect of these powers are rationalised into a coherent and comprehensive body of statute law, the better'.". That is the end of the quotation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. At the same time, we see that the current Family Law (Scotland) Bill implements the Report of the Scottish Law Commission on Matrimonial Property"— and then the paragraph goes on to say what that recommendation was.

The reason for my qualification in regard to a welcome on Second Reading to this Bill is that, first of all, there appears to be no urgency; secondly, that the Law Commission is considering the whole matter of overriding interest and what ought to be done to protect the interest of co-owners. We have lived with the position now for four years, and as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor said, the world has not come to an end; and indeed in regard to wives, the matter has been largely covered by the practical effect of joint ownership. We are walking into a situation before being advised by the Law Commission, in taking away protection from other members of a family, as we would call them, who are occupants of a matrimonial home. I think that that is completely unsatisfactory.

7.17 p.m.

Lord Wilberforce

My Lords, may I seek the indulgence of your Lordships to say a few words on this Bill? I apologise for not having put my name down to speak, the reason being that I hopelessly underestimated and happily underestimated the recuperative powers of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and thought that this Bill would come for consideration at a later date.

The only reason on my part for intervening at all is that I had the privilege of presiding the Appellate Committee of your Lordships which considered in 1981 the case of Boland. We had there a familiar dilemma. We had before us not one, but two, meritorious wives who had paid money in respect of the house which gave them legitimate expectation that they would be regarded as interested in the house. Therefore, the choice: do we do justice to the wives at the expense of possibly disturbing the placid pools of conveyancing practice, or do we adhere to legal orthodoxy and do injustice to two individuals?

We chose the former path. I have had some misgivings about whether or not we were right to do so, but I think it is probably fair to say that, if we had taken the other route and had decided in favour of conveyancing orthodoxy, there would still have been the need for legislative intervention through a reference to the Law Commission and we might be here with just the same sort of Bill as we have today.

As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has pointed out, in Boland we gave a general ruling covering all property and all persons—husbands, spouses, cohabitees and everyone—and no doubt it was that generality which called for investigation by the Law Commission and the prospect of legislation. But we now have in this Bill an attempt to draw arbitrary lines through those generalities. That is of course something which Parliament can do and which judges cannot do. I take it that our main task in considering this Bill is to see whether the lines have been drawn rightly or wrongly.

The first divide is between dwellinghouses and other property. The Bill applies only to dwellinghouses whereas Boland applied to all property of every kind. I believe that was a legitimate if arbitrary division. It is dwellinghouses that give rise to most social problems; not only between husbands and wives but between people having equitable interests in houses. I would have thought that was an acceptable division.

The next division is between spouses and others; the others including cohabitees (if I may use that barbarous word), partners and other people. It seems rather questionable now, in this day and age—when the general tendency of the courts is to assimilate the position of common law spouses, cohabitees, partners and so on into that of spouse—to separate them in this very definite way. We may have to consider whether it is right to make that division.

We then make a sub-division between monogamous spouses and polygamous spouses. That is a new one to me. It is clearly the product of some fertile mind. I do not feel very strongly about it but perhaps it is a point we should consider, if I am right in thinking that this is the first time such a distinction has been made.

We then have a final dividing line between the others—that is, others than spouses—who are excluded from the benefit of Section 70 of the Land Registration Act if, but only if, they take rights-under trusts. There is a definition of trusts in Clause 1(3) which I find of some obscurity. We have to consider rather carefully whether, accepting that others are to be separated from spouses at all, we should accept this limitation to those who take under trusts.

This Bill is not a wide-reaching Bill. It is not a Bill of social reform. It does not take up any of the proposals put forward in the Law Commission Report No. 115, which had main proposals and some other proposals. It does not take those up but presents a pragmatic and practical line of division between those which are to be accepted as overriding interests in respect of occupation and those which are not.

Its practical effects can be summed up very briefly in this way. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has pointed out, spouses are dealt with in most cases by joint ownership with registration in joint names; and this Bill will mean in practice that in other cases, in future, purchasers and their legal advisers will simply ask that the other spouse (the one who is not the registered proprietor) should join in the conveyance. They are not going to take a lot of trouble and incur a great deal of expense in exploring in detail the nature of the interest of the other spouse—whether it is under a trust, or whether it could have been registered, and so on. They will simply ask that the other spouse joins in, and that is what normally happens in most cases. To that extent, there will be considerable simplification in conveyancing practice.

On the other hand—and this is the gravamen of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out—there will be the others left on the wrong side of the dividing line. As the noble and learned Lord has said, they can register a caution if they are so advised. One is left with the fear—and here I share the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—that such people will be left out in the cold and that there may be cases, and quite a few cases, in which the interests they legitimately have are not capable of protection.

I would very much have liked to see what the Law Commission produced with regard to such persons. I do not believe that they can be easily discarded as a class of person of no importance as compared with spouses. With regard to them, I am not at all happy that the line has been drawn in the right place in this Bill. I am left with an uneasy feeling that there will be a vacuum as regards such persons and it is difficult to see how it can be filled by any amendment to this Bill.

Subject to those perhaps not important qualifications, so far as the Bill goes I welcome it—although we may wish to reconsider some of its individual provisions. I accept it as a measure legitimately cleaning up some of the difficulties created by the decided cases.

7.26 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I will first thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the gracious way in which he began his speech. I am on my feet again, although whether I am on particularly good form is another matter. I am glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce was able to take a part in this debate. He put a very clear perspective on the scope and purposes of the Bill. There is only one observation I would care to make about what he has just said before I read it again in Hansard. The reason why polygamous spouses are included is that they are included in the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983. That seems a logical step.

As regards the others, I agree that the Bill is of very limited scope indeed. The practical effect will be, first, that some people will protect their interests by registration. I am pushing on with registration in England and Wales—the failure of which has been on my conscience ever since I was first Lord Chancellor, and on the conscience of somebody ever since 1887. I hope to complete that task very soon, so that the unregistered situation is not a very serious one. We hope to get that through. As regards the others, either they will take part in the conveyance or they will protect their rights by registration.

As regards the fact that most houses are in fact registered in the names of the husband and wife jointly, that seems to me to be an admirable state of affairs. But I am not sure that I follow entirely the relevance of the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on that point. The purpose is to protect them all, whether they are in joint ownership or not. The remaining one-quarter or one-eighth, or whatever the figure may now be, will be protected under the Bill so that all wives and all husbands are so protected.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I intervene only to make my point clear. The urgency of this Bill would have been apparent had there been a great number of wives who might have been unprotected. That is not the case because of the numbers who are joint owners of property under modern procedure.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I take the point that the world will not come to an end—if I may borrow my own phrase—if the Bill were not passed at all. It is a Bill of very limited scope for exactly the reasons which my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce has stated. But in so far as it is valuable, I would rather press it upon the House. I point out that it is quite hopeless—expressly in the light of the Scottish Law Commission's report—to try to revert to the co-ownership package to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, took some exception in the debate of 1982. Time has passed by that—for the time being, at any rate—so I do not consider that that is any kind of objection to this Bill.

The other point I would make concerns one of the recommendations of the Law Commission Report No. 115. The first of them—as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out—was that the interests of co-owners and of purchasers and vendors should be protected by means of the existing systems of registration. That is the primary objective of the Bill. That primary object would of course be defeated if we do not insist that a mother-in-law, or whatever common law wife who has contributed to the purchase of the house there may be, and who does not have a registered joint ownership title, and the others, should protect their interests by registration, as in fact the Law Commission's report suggests they should; or else should join in the transaction, in which case of course they are protected by another route.

As regards the argument, which at first sight sounds plausible, that the Law Commission has been dealing with overriding interests, that is, as one would expect from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, perfectly correct. However, I am sorry to say that looking at the matter as dispassionately as I can it must be at the very earliest several years before a Law Commission Bill on this subject can be found a place in the legislative programme. In the previous Bill the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred to the unpersuasive character of Lord Chancellors when they deal with their colleagues who have other measures with what I might call more sex appeal than law reform, or more political motivation behind them than law reform, to propose in the place of law reform Bills.

This is a relatively small problem. It can be resolved relatively quickly without extra resources and it will save time and money. It will do no preventable injustice that I can predict to anyone who takes the least trouble to protect their own interests. In the meantime, it will assist the process of purchase and mortgage, which is very much in the public interest. It will assist the process of conveyancing by saving time and money. If I were to use more eloquent language in support of this rather modest little measure I would be-wasting the time of the House and exhausting its patience because, as I say, it is a technical little Bill which will do good rather than harm; but I do not say that the world will come to an end if it is not passed in the form in which it is proposed. With those modest words of support, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.