The Gazette 1994

GAZETTE

MARCH 1994

I E Í W Í P 0 1 I N I T

Free t he Land Regist ry!

What has happened to the plans to convert the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds to semi-State status? In 1988 the Law Society proposed that both Registries should be taken out of the mainstream of the Civil Service and reconstituted as a public corporation so as to allow them freedom to operate as commercial entities. The Society made the case that if this were done, they would be better able to provide "a cheap, simple and effective system of registration" - the stated reason for their existence. An analysis of the workload of the Land Registry showed that, at a time when demand for Registry services was growing (the number of applications to the Registry increased by 10% from 1981 - 1988), staffing levels had actually decreased by 23% with a resultant deterioration in the quality of the service. At the same Ome, income from fees in most years exceeded State expenditure on the Registries, all of which tended to show that with the right management R was also apparent to the Society in 1988 that the Registries were Providing a service that was capable °f being run on commercial lines and could, at a minimum, be self- financing. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Law Society advanced the view that if the Registries were in a Position to chart their own destiny, to re-invest any surplus generated from fees in developing their services, and had the freedom to recruit their own staff, ultimately a better service would be provided to the community. In 1990, the Government announced that it had decided, in principle, to change the status of the Land Registry a nd the Registry of Deeds to that of a semi-State organisation and in July, 1992, the then Minister for Justice, approach, the service could be improved and additional income generated.

Padraig Flynn TD, appointed an interim board, on a non-statutory basis, to oversee the changeover. Over four years on, the legislation needed to effect the legal transformation has not materialised and the move does not seem any nearer. Moreover, it now appears that the energies of the interim Board and the management team in the Land Registry have been diverted to coping with the problems generated by the Government's decision to relocate part of the Registry to Waterford City in line with its policy of decentralising Civil Service Departments and State services. It is ironic that a Board established to oversee a new status for the Land Registry should now fall prey to one of the drawbacks of being linked to the Civil Service. Whatever merit there may be in a policy of decentralising Government Departments - and we can see the force of the argument for it in economic terms - the timing of this decision is, to say the least, unfortunate. At a time when the new Board is attempting to put in place a whole new infrastructure, new management systems and develop and cope with a new information technology policy, why it should have to cope with such dislocation and disruption is difficult to understand. Staff in the Registries perform complex work and a high degree of training is required. In the event that a large number of staff decide not to transfer to Waterford - and that is likely to be the case since there will be no compulsion - there is bound to be a time-lag while new staff are properly trained and gain experience. The consequences, in terms of increased delay to users of the service, are obvious. Another major problem facing the new Board is that it does not have freedom to organise the financing of

essential expenditure programmes needed to put in place the proper infrastructure and, consequently, is totally dependent on the State for its budget. This means that the Registries have to take their place in the queue with other Department of Justice services and, of course, inevitably get squeezed. Given that the Registries are capable of operating on a commercial basis and generating income, this is difficult to understand and the question must be asked why the Board cannot, at this stage, be authorised to borrow. Delay in the Land Registry has been a sorry fact of life for solicitors for many years now. Solicitors have frequently been on the receiving end of the justifiable ire of clients whose land transactions are held up. Such delays frequently act as a brake on the commercial life of the country by impeding property transactions in both urban and rural areas. Given the constraints under which they operate, the Registrar and her staff have made enormous strides in efficiency. It is fair to say that they have shown themselves well capable of driving the future development of the Registries if they were given the freedom to do so. Instead, they remain in unsuitable premises, starved of resources and now have to contend with the added problems posed by the decision to decentralise. The Law Society believes that we must have a Land Registry and a Registry of Deeds that are in a position to preserve the services they provide and to extend the range of those services. The Registries must have full control of the resources they generate, freedom to plan and develop their services, and freedom to recruit and train staff as appropriate. recent years in implementing computerisation and improving

(Continued overleaf)

45