Land Registration Bill [HL]

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 5:30 pm on 30 October 2001.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, Parliamentary Secretary (Lord Chancellor's Department) 5:30, 30 October 2001

My Lords, these amendments deal with cautions and notices. In relation to the first amendment, it may be helpful if I start my response to the noble Viscount by agreeing with him that the detailed arrangements for giving effect to the Bill will need to take account of the circumstances set out in the amendment and with what he has said. I do not, however, believe that it is necessary to amend the Bill to secure that, and that it is preferable to leave this issue, and no doubt many others, to be covered in the more flexible provisions of rules.

Amendment No. 48 seeks to remove any possible doubt that the consent given to the entry of an agreed notice under Clause 34 can be for a limited period. This might be the case when the interest being protected by the notice is time-limited in some way. Rules made under Clause 39 can make provision about the form and content of notices on the register to make this clear. But the amendment itself is unnecessary.

Amendment No. 49 seeks to ensure that the registrar serves notice of the entry of an agreed notice when the proprietor of the land or charge affected applies or consents to its entry or when the registrar is satisfied of the applicant's claim. This might occur when, for instance, the registrar is satisfied that the registered proprietor has granted the applicant an option over the land or when an entry confirming the existence of a matrimonial home right is requested.

I can confirm that at present the registrar does serve notice on the registered proprietor of any such applications and that he does serve notice on any other persons whose rights are protected on the register if those rights might be affected by the action he is taking.

I can confirm that it is also intended to use the general rule-making powers contained in Schedule 10 to the Bill for the purpose of setting down the minimum requirements in this regard. Such rules will be looked at by the Land Registration Rule Committee and will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The detailed provisions adopted in relation to the giving of notice in specific circumstances are not a matter for the Bill.

I hope that these explanations and undertakings have reassured the noble Viscount to an extent where he will feel able to withdraw the amendments.

Turning to Amendment No. 51, the amendment to Clause 36 provides that an agreed notice may be removed in particular circumstances--namely, when time-limited consent to the registration of the notice has run out. While I agree that it would be appropriate to update the register and remove the notice when the underlying interest has expired, I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary.

As I have said, notice entered on the register does not affect the validity of the underlying interest which it protects. If the underlying interest has expired, then the notice, even if still present on the register, will have no legal effect. This would be the case whether or not the consent given to the entry of the notice was time-limited.

Whenever the interest protected by an agreed notice has come to an end, either through time limitation or determination for other reasons, the owner may apply to the registrar for the register to be updated by the removal of the notice. The registrar has power to update the register under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4.

For these reasons, we respectfully suggest that no amendment is needed to the clause as drafted and I invite the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment.