I beg to move amendment No. 12 in page 5, line 17, at beginning insert—

'(1) Subject to subsection (2),'.

With this we may discuss amendment No. 13 in page 5, line 24, at end insert—

'(2) If the requirement of registration is applied because of section 4(1)(g) and the mortgagee applied for the registration of the estate, or undertook to do so, with or without the consent of the mortgagor, the mortgagee is liable as set out in subsection (1).'.

The amendments relate to liability for making good void transfers under clause 8. The amendments' purpose is to provide that where there is the grant of a mortgage with or without a transfer to the mortgagor, and where that leads to compulsory registration, the practice is for the mortgagee to apply for registration because they have the title deeds to protect their security. A late application for registration would be a serious matter for a mortgagor, and it would also be beyond their control.

It seems unlikely that failure to affect first registration would cause difficulty, so we are proposing that the consequences should fall on those who are responsible. When a person buys a property with a mortgage, the mortgagee immediately takes the deeds as security. In practice, it is the mortgagee who must deal with registration, although the responsibility may appear to rest with the mortgagor. If the mortgagee overlooks the matter, they are responsible for any loss.

We agree with the sentiment behind the amendments, and we understand that between the parties it will often be right to apportion liability for the resulting costs. However, we must resist the amendments.

The Bill imposes an obligation on the responsible estate owner to apply for first registration of title within two months of an event that triggers first registration. If the responsible estate owner does not do so, and the registrar does not make an order allowing him extra time, the document transferring title must be repeated, which would result in further costs. The combined effect of the two amendments would be to transfer that liability to the mortgagee in cases where they have the task of submitting the application for registration. The Bill does not prevent that liability being placed elsewhere by agreement; it merely replicates the long-established default position reflected in subsections 8 and 9 of the Land Registration Act 1925, which places the primary responsibility on the person who should be registered as proprietor of the estate.

I should also emphasise a point made in another place: conveyancing practice will change dramatically over the next few years. Even if there were a strong argument for changing the default position, now is not an appropriate time to make that change. That should be left for when we have a clearer picture of what the future holds. I hope therefore that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

In the light of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 14 in page 5, line 24, at end insert—

'( ) For the purposes of section 12A of the Stamp Act 1891 (c. 39), an instrument to which section 7(1) applies shall be treated as having been accidentally spoiled.'.

This is a repetition of an amendment that we proposed in the other place. It is a probing amendment to ensure that if an instrument were voided by failure to apply for registration, the stamp duty paid on it could be used on any replacement instrument executed to give effect to the original transaction. The Bill states that in certain cases, which we agree are rare, a second instrument may be executed to replace the one that was ineffective because registration had not occurred. It seems to me that that is a subject to which it is worth returning. The Minister may be able to reassure me on Report.

I hope that I shall be able rapidly to reassure the hon. Gentleman on this point.

The Stamp Duties Management Act 1891 already ensures that only one payment of stamp duty is made in such situations. Section 9 of the 1891 Act states that subject to the production of evidence as to the facts, and to compliance with stamp duty regulations, allowance is to be made by the commissioners for stamps spoiled

''when an instrument executed by any party thereto becomes void for want of registration within the time required by law.''

I can therefore reassure the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is unnecessary, and I invite him to withdraw it.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.