Land Registration (Network Access) (Amendment) Rules 2011

My Lords, the important point that should be appreciated—I am sure that it is—is that when a title is registered, it is an absolute title. It can be obtained by fraud or by any other means, but it is an absolute title, once registration has been granted. That means that the person who owns that title can sell it on and deal with it as if it were his own. Any issue as to how that registration has been obtained is left for litigation. Therefore, it is crucial that the integrity of the register is maintained. So much depends on trust. We trust that the people who make these applications will do so honestly, with proper consideration of all the issues and in the interests of their clients. That is why we have all these rules, which endeavour to ensure that the very competent staff of the Land Registry are not deceived by applications from outside. What is this all about? It brings the alternative business structures system into the position of being an authorised applicant to deal with the Land Registry. I have expressed my views on these alternative business structures so often that I sound a little like Cassandra. However, I foresee trouble. If there is trouble in the future, it is not the lawyers who will suffer; they will do very well. It is the consumer and the customer who will suffer. There is a lack of confidence in the way that this has been put forward. The summary of the impact assessment says on page 3, under the heading ““Other key non-monetised benefits by ‘main affected groups’””: "““The proposals will avoid the potential costs to Land Registry customers outlined in the base case by ensuring only persons authorised to prepare and make applications relating to land registration are able to do so””." That states the obvious; it is the position at the moment. The summary goes on: "““Land Registry customers may further benefit if the new definition of ‘conveyancer’””—" that is, these rules— "““leads to better quality conveyancing practices compared to current levels””." Why it should lead to better conveyancing practices than the current system, under which conveyancing is carried out by qualified lawyers or managing executives, I do not know. The summary continues: "““Ensuring ABS firms fall within the definition should also lead to increased competition in the conveyancing market, which may provide efficiency benefits for society, and direct benefits for Land Registry customers in the form of lower prices and/or increased choice””." The sort of situation that I envisage, particularly in a tight housing market, is that developers will offer a conveyancing service, or an ABS. They will have an interest in the outcome of the conveyance of their own homes and access to the registry. They may act for both parties. All the checks and balances that have developed over the years to protect the consumer and householder will be weakened. I have had my usual rant on this subject, so I shall leave it at that. I cannot say that I welcome this measure.