Joint Committee on Justice debate -
Tuesday, 2 Jul 2024

Apologies have been received from Deputy Mark Ward and Senators Lynn Ruane and Vincent P. Martin. I remind members and everyone else present to turn off their mobile phones or switch them to flight mode because they interfere with the sound system and make it difficult for the Debates Office staff reporting the meeting. They can sometimes interfere with the television coverage as well.

The first item on our agenda is scrutiny of the Seller’s Legal Pack for Property Buyers Bill 2021. The purpose of this part of the meeting is to engage with the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers and the Law Society of Ireland on the Bill, which is sponsored by Deputy MacSharry. For the information of the committee, a written submission was received from the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland over the weekend and was circulated to members. Members are entitled to have regard to what is contained in that submission. As it is an unsolicited late submission, it is up to the committee to decide whether it should be included in its report or any report that subsequently arises from the committee's consideration of this matter.

I welcome our contributing guests to the meeting. From the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers, IPAV, we have Mr. Pat Davitt, chief executive and a fellow of the institute; Ms Lisa Kearney, president and director of Rooney Auctioneers and a member of IPAV; and Mr. Keith Anderson, who is also a fellow of the institute, a former president and board member, and a current member of its conveyancing committee. Mr. Mark Garrett, director general of the Law Society, and Ms Eleanor McKiernan, chair of its conveyancing committee, are also in attendance. I thank them all very much for coming.

Before I invite our guests to deliver their opening statements, I will advise them of the following regarding parliamentary privilege. Some of them may already be aware of this but we will go through it. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The format for the meeting is that I will invite each of the organisations to make their opening statements to a maximum of three minutes, if that is possible. Once the opening statements have been delivered, I will call members to ask their questions in the order they indicated to me. We will go through a rota whereby each of them will have six minutes to engage with the witnesses. That six minutes is for both members' questions and witnesses' answers. They might bear that in mind. When all members have had their initial engagement, we may have another round, depending on time. Please note that the duration of the meeting is limited and therefore the times must be strictly adhered to. I ask them to please focus their contributions if at all possible.

I call IPAV to make its opening statement.

I will introduce members to our president, Ms Kearney, and Mr. Anderson, who has been a member of our conveyancing committee for many years. On behalf of the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers, I thank the committee for inviting us to the pre-legislative hearing of the Seller’s Legal Pack for Property Buyers Bill 2021. We look forward to discussing the basis and provisions of the Bill, which remain open to amendment following the committee’s scrutiny.

The Seller’s Legal Pack for Property Buyers Bill 2021 was devised by IPAV in 2020 after extensive consultation with various property-related stakeholders. We invited the Law Society to participate, but it did not choose to do so at that time. The urgency for enacting the Bill stems from the significant delays, often up to 16 weeks, that currently plague the property market. These delays cause profound disruptions for all parties to the property sales process, including consumers. As the trade body representing the interests of our profession, we have sought policy and legislative changes to address these concerns. The primary aim of the Bill is to reduce conveyancing delays by front-loading the process. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we propose to change the order in which documents are made available to prospective buyers.

Our objectives with the legislation, which prioritises consumer interests, include: providing full transparency and complete information to consumers upfront, thus reducing potential liabilities for vendors and ensuring certainty for all; offering early confirmation of property saleability, which will reduce failed transactions and associated costs; driving efficiencies similar to those in public auctions and online sales, where documentation is provided upfront and sales close within weeks; and cutting conveyancing times by at least 50%. These objectives were borne out of research conducted by IPAV among property sales professionals and consumers in 2020, which highlighted the need for the seller's legal pack, as 81% of auctioneers expressed frustration over delays, with sales taking an average of 16 weeks to complete. Further research in 2024 found that 32% of properties on the market had issues to be resolved, such as deed or boundary problems. These issues could have been averted if the seller's legal pack had been in place.

Previous attempts to reduce delays, such as the voluntary pre-contract investigation of title, PCIT, system, have had a poor effect, whereas a mandatory seller’s legal pack would offer confidence, certainty and protection for consumers while addressing long-standing frustrations. Moreover, the seller's legal pack can act as a precursor to e-conveyancing, which was flagged as a crucial reform but, much like the conveyancer profession, has yet to be introduced. What one must understand about e-conveyancing, even it were to be introduced today, is that the documentation we are speaking about is still required and will be required.

However, the seller's legal pack that we are addressing today is not a lone wolf. The UK Government's 2022 White Paper on levelling up proposed reintroducing a very similar initiative to the seller's legal pack, namely, the home information pack, HIP, recognising its potential to reduce conveyancing delays. Additionally, professional bodies and lawyers in Scotland and Wales have expressed interest in adopting similar legislation to achieve more positive outcomes for consumers. According to Professor Stewart Brymer of the Scottish Conveyancers Forum, the home report has been in place in Scotland since 2008 and works very well, but a speedier process with upfront document provision is long overdue.

Concerns have been raised regarding the cost of the seller's legal pack for consumers but this will not happen, given the objective of the Bill is to conduct the same legal work but merely to upfront the current process, thus making it more time-efficient. Furthermore, any issues or concerns raised have been strongly rebutted in submissions to the Departments of Justice and housing, and these have been largely accepted. IPAV is open to input from the committee to ensure the Bill benefits consumers once enacted.

As I am sure members know, the Bill contains seven sections. I will not go through them here but will move on. I will leave members with this: when purchasing a car, you receive a history of the vehicle upfront, including mileage, maintenance, and ownership details. This makes it very easy to validate the data before making a decision to purchase. However, when purchasing a property, people receive no upfront evidence, despite paying a multiple of what the cost of a car would be. This makes no sense, particularly given the intricacies of Ireland’s conveyancing, which largely dates back to the Conveyancing Act 1881. Therefore, it is clear to me that the process desperately needs reform to reflect the digital age.

The case for reform is clear. Let us work together to make the whole process more streamlined and simplified for customers, while providing certainty to all parties to a property sale. I look forward to a constructive discussion on the merits of the Bill, welcome suggestions for amendments, and am ready to answer any questions the committee may have. Go raibh maith agaibh.

I am joined by my colleague, Ms McKiernan, who is chair of the Law Society's conveyancing committee. The Law Society has, over many years, highlighted the antiquated, overcomplicated and lengthy nature of the conveyancing system in Ireland. It is crystal clear to solicitors that the current conveyancing system is long overdue systematic reform to reduce delays, costs and stress on house buyers and sellers.

The conveyancing system we have involves up to 15 interdependent parties, including lenders, estate agents, solicitors, local authorities, Tailte Éireann, the Revenue Commissioners, Uisce Éireann, valuers and surveyors. This means a delay by any one of those parties has a significant knock-on impact on all parties, most notably for the people who wish to sell or buy a home. It is also important to note that many of the parties in the process currently, for example, financial institutions or local authorities, operate to their own processes and protocols, which can result in misalignment of objectives and deadlines. The experience of legal practitioners is that delays can be weeks, months and, in the worst cases, sometimes last for up to five years. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill but, more importantly, the reform needed in the overall conveyancing process.

In recent submissions to the Government’s Housing for All working group, and the Departments of Justice, Finance and housing, we outlined a number of key reforms that could be undertaken to help reduce delays in the conveyancing process. I will give two simple examples. First, every local authority in the country has a different system for confirming the roads, lanes and services that are within their charge. There are different means of requesting confirmation, different fees and different timelines. Second, when it comes to planning, a solicitor, on the buyer’s behalf, must investigate the planning history, going back over 60 years, to determine whether there is an unauthorised development, even in circumstances where the law states no planning enforcement can be taken after seven years. If there is an unauthorised development, the buyer may not get a mortgage until this is rectified. We believe there is a better and a quicker way.

The Law Society submissions to multiple Departments outlined six necessary actions to reduce delays in the conveyancing process. I will briefly outline them. The first is adherence to the certificate of title system for all financial institutions. Second is the adoption by all local authorities of a standardised and digital process for in-charge letters.

Third is a central document management system at the Property Registration Authority. Fourth is the end of historical and unnecessary review of unenforceable planning decisions through the recognition of established non-conforming developments. Fifth is the modernisation and digitalisation of statutory declarations and statements of truth. Sixth is a review of the regulatory burden and delay that arises from associated public policy issues, especially the collection of taxes.

The Law Society of Ireland agrees with the broad objectives of the Seller’s Legal Pack for Property Buyers Bill. However, it is concerned that the operation of the Bill in practice will have unintended consequences. For example, significant time would be required to obtain all information needed as outlined in the Bill, especially as some documentation is not currently compulsory for the completion of a property sale. As the pack would be supplied to all potential buyers, rather than just the final sale agreed buyer, it is likely to increase the number of parties, including solicitors, in the process leading to more questions, more documents, more time and more costs. That will not be true in every case but it will be true in a substantial number of cases.

In addition to the reforms mentioned above, the Law Society of Ireland calls for renewed collaboration to implement e-conveyancing, as IPAV has done, which is a digital process that will speed up property transactions. Meaningful reform in these areas will have an important and positive impact on the system to the benefit of sellers, buyers and the overall housing market. The current process can only be described as dysfunctional and, at times, chaotic. We welcome any questions and are interested in all of the reform agenda that has been outlined.

I welcome everybody to the meeting. It has been informative. I would be relatively aware of the Bill that has been brought forward by IPAV. I am relatively aware of the situation in which Mr. Garrett and Ms McKiernan are. I read a little ditty in yesterday's Irish Independent that the Law Society of Ireland, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, RICS, and whoever else seemed to have jointly released, according to the newspaper.

I am curious. Mr. Garrett outlined six measures that are required but they are all to do with everything apart from the Law Society of Ireland. He talked about local government and tax, the Government itself and all these other complications. I have a background in the property sector. I would say that 90% of sales that are held up are held up by the legal process. That is not always due to the solicitors but a lot of it can be because they sit on stuff or are not as efficient as they should be or whatever else. I cannot see where the complication is. If IPAV, through this Bill, is requesting stuff that is not requested legally, we can amend the Bill and take that stuff out. I am sure IPAV will be reasonable and will look at that reasonably. I am sure it would not have a big problem if that is the biggest problem we have with the Bill. However, that does not seem to be the biggest problem. It seems that something else is ingrained here and for some reason, the Law Society of Ireland does not want to see this legislation progress. It is progressive legislation and I cannot see where the solicitors would have a problem. People who are thinking about selling their houses have to get a building energy rating, BER, certificate. That is the only real requirement. They have to sign a contract with the selling agent. They also need the deeds and whatever else. If the solicitor does that in advance and gets paid to do it, I cannot see why the legal professionals have a problem. That seems to be a no-brainer. Even if the person in question does not sell the house, the solicitors will get paid because they are doing all the work in advance. It is ready to pop then, so if the seller gets a customer and the house is sold, everything is ready to roll and there is no need for waiting.

Problems could be flagged way in advance. Mr. Garrett mentioned his six problems but they could all be flagged way in advance before the sale is transacted. Mr. Garrett mentioned problems with rights of way, lanes and the tax implications. All of that would be done way in advance without the seller finding a buyer, approaching a solicitor and realising there is a problem. We have been running the cart before the horse for a long time in Irish property and it has made it one of the slowest countries in the world to have transactions in. That is my general experience of property deals throughout the world. In most places, Spain or wherever else, contracts are nearly given on the day. If there was some reason I could see whereby it would make sense for the solicitors or the Bar of Ireland not to be behind the Bill, I would understand but I do not know why they are not behind it. Solicitors will be the first ports of call. They will do a little work and get paid for it. We are all in business. We will all move on and it will be great. I do not see why the solicitors do not think this is a good idea. Mr. Garrett listed many complications but the solicitors will be paid to ensure they are sorted out beforehand. Solicitors are the only people who are going to tie up taxes, roads, rights of way and Irish Water. Those were some of the examples he listed. I apologise that I do not have my notes with me. Solicitors will be co-ordinating the work to ensure it is done. They will have everything in order. They will be paid first and everything will be ready to go. As soon as there is a buyer, a seller is ready to go. The solicitor can instruct that there are no problems with the property and the sellers are free to sell.

I will pass to my colleague, Ms McKiernan, in a moment to talk about some of the specifics, if that is all right. In the broad context, the Senator is saying that transactions can become tied up in the legal process. It is a very legalistic process; that is the point. Therefore, any delay occurs in the legal process and that is usually communicated by the solicitors to the buyer and seller in the circumstances. We see delays all the way through. Our submissions to the committee and to the Departments were very detailed. It is deeply frustrating for many of the people involved, including the solicitors. We wish there was a simple solution that would mean doing something would solve all the problems.

We have outlined 15 interdependent parties through the process. One of the things we talked about in the joint effort we have done with the surveyors is that engaging with an estate agent and solicitor well ahead of selling a property will help to alleviate those delays. If you get these documents in place in advance, it will help to move the system along. I am in agreement on all of those matters. However, there are delays in getting deeds. Some financial institutions work very well to produce the deeds under our system within ten days. However, there are occasions when that does not happen and it takes weeks. For registering a property, there are delays in the probate office. All of these aspects are interconnected. They are all in the legal process. Being caught in the legal process effectively means being caught anywhere in the system. Solicitors have to communicate that to sellers and buyers and frustration will come out in the process.

I would love to think this Bill will solve the problems but, unfortunately, I do not believe that is the case. I believe it is a positive and significant contribution to the debate that recognises we need significant reform in this area. We can work with everybody involved to make sure the process is simplified and digitised. There are significant delays in registering properties. It can take years and if somebody is then looking to resell a house, it is not possible. I would love to believe it is just one thing but, unfortunately, we have developed a system in this country over decades, if not centuries, that has become so complicated that every single person within the system is frustrated. What IPAV and the sponsor of the Bill have done is to highlight some of the frustrations that people have with the system. We share those frustrations. I have listed six issues. In our detailed submission, there are probably a couple of dozen suggestions.

There are significant and detailed issues. I am happy to address some of the detailed concerns but in the bigger picture, we wish there was one solution to these significant issues. There are always some areas on which we can work to provide clarity in the Bill and on issues and so on. Unfortunately, I think there is a more significant issue around this legislation. Digitisation is one issue we talk about. The digitisation of statutory declarations and statements of truth would make such a difference and would smooth out the process. That requires legislation.

There are historical issues around unenforceable planning decisions. We have made proposals to amend the planning Bill that is going through the Oireachtas but they have not been taken up.

It would significantly reduce the burden on buyers and sellers within the sale process. There is lots to consider.

If something is an issue, it is an issue regardless of whether this Bill comes into force. Mr. Garrett is throwing out red herrings, from what I can see. I am not trying to be combative but he seems to be looking for other problems in an effort to muddy the waters relating to the Bill. I do not get it. The issue he referred to is there and will continue to be there until is fixed. If he was trying to introduce an amendment into the Bill to address it, that would be a different kettle of fish. However, that is not we are not discussing. He is stating an existing-----

Mr. Garrett is pointing to an existing problem and trying to tie it to this Bill. The problem he spoke about is there and will still be there even if the Bill is enacted. The same applies to three or four other problems he mentioned. Whatever this Bill does, it will not make the job of solicitors any longer or more intense, apart from having to do the work upfront. If there are provisions in the Bill that are not necessary legally at present, I am sure amendments can be tabled to remove them.

I am not sure it will be pithy. There is some counterintuitive thinking to be applied to this issue. We are stating clearly that the Bill, as currently drafted, would mean more work and business for solicitors. Someone going to an auction process would take a pack and supply it to a bidder. If there are three, four or five people bidding on a property, the pack would be supplied to each of them. Each bidder, in turn, would give it to his or her solicitor. Each solicitor will then investigate the pack and will put any questions relating to it to the seller's solicitor. Instead of having one solicitor on both sides, there will potentially be five or six.

I welcome the witnesses. I have a background in property. Indeed, I attribute many of my grey hairs to the conveyancing process, which I found extremely frustrating. I commend Mr. Davitt and his colleagues in IPAV on the work they have been doing to try to design a more streamlined process. I acknowledge the huge work Deputy MacSharry has put into drafting this Bill and bringing it forward as a genuine attempt to address a problem that clearly exists. I have taken from both presentations that everyone acknowledges there is a problem, although we might differ on how to go about tackling it.

I heard Mr. Davitt say in an interview on local radio this morning that 32% of properties currently on the market should not be on the market. That is a waste of everybody's time, including the vendor and all the people who take the time to view a property on the understanding it is sellable when, in fact, it is not. Those people incur costs, as does everybody involved in the process, with a nil return at the end of the day. The conveyancing legislation dates back to 1881 or thereabouts. We all agree there is a problem. It is just a matter of how we should streamline the process. I acknowledge the work that has gone into addressing the issues.

Mr. Davitt mentioned the UK but I did not catch what he said. Will he elaborate on that? What can we learn from the system there or elsewhere in terms of what works well? In my experience, public auction was always a very satisfactory process to be involved in because it is very transparent. Anybody genuinely looking to purchase a particular property has clarity from the get-go. People knew what they were getting. Unfortunately, that is not the situation when it comes to private treaty sales. It is very frustrating. Costs are incurred by individuals, whether for surveyors, valuers or whatever. Those costs would not need to be incurred if the vendor had done the homework before placing the property on the market. All of that is making a lot of additional work for IPAV's members. I fully accept that the delays they are experiencing are not solely down to their offices. Auctioneers depend on many other plays to provide the information for distribution to those who request it. Will Mr. Davitt outline areas we can look at from which we can learn? Are those learnings incorporated within the document before us?

My next question is for Mr. Garrett. I fully appreciate that solicitors are not in total control of the process. They are depending on perhaps six individuals to do their work in order that they can be efficient in doing theirs. However, they may be giving themselves more work to do by not having a process in play that they can lean on to ensure, at least, that they know the client they are working for will get to the finishing line. I hear from colleagues in the legal profession that they often end up doing a lot of work for somebody who has expressed an interest in a property but who does not ultimately get to the finishing line. There is then an issue as to how much to charge that individual at the end of the process. That can end up in situations that are less than harmonious, to which I am sure Mr. Garrett can testify. He indicated that, by and large, the Law Society is in broad agreement with a lot of what is in the Bill. Will he home in on exactly where he sees the issues and flaws and what he would like to see stitched into the Bill to alleviate his concerns?

Before I go through the scenario in the UK, as the Senator requested, I want to go back to the point Mr. Garrett addressed earlier about the time involved in the process and the extra costs because of that time. On the one hand, he is saying he is in favour of digitalisation but, on the other, he is telling us he is printing out all these documents and having to send them out to other solicitors and so on.

It is not up to Mr. Davitt to question Mr. Garrett on points he has made. If Mr. Davitt wants to make comments about the Bill, he is welcome to do so. However, I cannot allow him to put comments to another witness for that witness to answer. There is no difficulty with discussing a matter or addressing anything any member has said. However, the discussion should not be between the witnesses, if that is all right.

Thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirleach. The time the process takes was mentioned earlier by somebody. We do not see time as an issue. At the end of the day, if the solicitors move on with digitalisation and they put in what is known as a data room in their offices, that will be a fantastic step forward. They can put all of their documentation there, which can be seen by anybody anywhere. Every time a question is asked, it can be put onto the system in the data room. The next person might not ask the same question but the answer will be there. Each question only has to be answered once, then put online and off we go. The questions are there and they are all answered.

Senator Gallagher asked about the system in the UK. When this Bill was first discussed among ourselves, we asked solicitors to draft a list of the requirements for the Bill. From our point of view, they went a bit overboard with the number of documents they wanted. We ran with it, however, because it was the same number of documents as is required for public auction sales. Then we spoke to Deputy MacSharry, who has a wealth of experience in the property business, and to a number of barristers before we drafted the Bill. It was drafted on the basis of the items that are required to make the process much simpler. It is about having a certain number of documents upfront. It has nothing to do with the time it takes to get those documents done when we are doing them upfront. The time it takes to put the documents together will eventually be blended in with the whole process. As agents, we have seen this previously with the building energy rating, BER, certification process. When it came in first, everybody thought it was the worst thing under the sun. Agents did not want to use it.

Nobody wanted to use it. Unfortunately, solicitors were landed with a situation where they had to do the sale without a BER and then they had to go and immediately get one. Eventually the provision was brought into law with a certain time period. Eventually that time period fed into the system and there was no problem with it. It was not until there was a law put behind the BER that this happened. This procedure that we are speaking about now is exactly the same. We all know, and solicitors and we know, that a certain amount of documents cause the most amount of problems. They are not documents about tax or septic tanks; they are serious documents about the deeds and planning for the property. I accept that planning differs from county council to country council, and the regions and times are different but at the same time we have to work with the system we have. We can all look together to get these changed if we all want to work together with the county councils and the Minister. At the end of the day, if it takes six, ten or whatever weeks it takes to get these documents then that is the amount of time that is blended in before a property is put on the market, and when a property is put on the market then at least we know it can be sold.

After we put the Bill together we set up a coalition of people who are involved in conveyancing in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. We got some of the most educated people who have dealt with this matter for many years, including Professor Stewart Brymer, whom I mentioned earlier. Professor Brymer introduced in Scotland a property pack so people can survey properties. That is not what we are looking at in Ireland at the moment. First, we are looking at the information needed to sell the property. The English system uses both conveyancers and solicitors. However, the system in England slightly differs because a conveyancer does the conveyance on the property while the solicitor will do all parts of the sale. Scotland and Wales are similar. The English system had a home pack some time ago. Indeed, as part of another committee that I worked on in 2006, which was a special committee set up by the then Minister for justice, we visited the fair trade association in England about the pack. By the time we visited the pack had been withdrawn. The main reason for withdrawal was because the engineers were asked to compile an engineer's report on the property and certify it themselves, which they could not do because the engineer's certificate has to be "To whom it may concern", instead of being for one person. If somebody bought the property, the certificate would be for that person instead of indemnifying everybody. That was one of the reasons the pack was withdrawn. Agents have told us that if the government changes in England, the pack will possibly be introduced again. They have told us they would be very happy with the pack, as it was, because it got all of the information upfront and a pack would work very well. It is 17 years since that happened and things might have changed since then.

In Northern Ireland, there is an agreement or memorandum of understanding with solicitors, which is a slightly different system from what we have here.

On the point about digitisation and the other areas where we seek reform, the Law Society has invested €1.3 million in eConveyancing in the past number of years for the very simple reason that we believe it is the future. We encourage digitisation. We have worked with the Department and the likes of the Banking and Payments Federation Ireland, etc. to look at how we can bring all the parts to the table on eConveyancing. There are third-party vendors as well. That is a significant understanding of the complications within the system. We are definitely very committed to doing that because we believe it is in everybody's interest, including those who buy and sell properties, solicitors and all the parties involved. The reality is we have seen up to 15 parties involved when going through all the list and various complications.

My colleague Ms McKiernan will outline some of the details and some of our concerns, on which we are very open to questions.

The systems in England and Scotland have been discussed. In Ireland, the principle of caveat emptor or buyer beware applies. It is a key legal principle that has existed for generations whereby you buy the property on notice of the state, condition and repair of the property. One section in the Bill mentions a lot of documents that "may" be provided that relate to the state, condition and repair, and surveyor reports. In so doing, even if it is voluntary, the Bill could completely change the way of a contract and conveyancing, which is something that would need serious consideration. The need to go before the Law Reform Commission first to conduct a review is a basic principle. We are quite different from our English counterparts in that regard.

There have been a few conversations here about auctions. I work all the day in selling and buying properties in local residential markets. They are private treaty sales and that is what people want. There is also a lower cost base to a private treaty sale for a seller and a buyer than at auction. If we start to front-load everything and say to people that they cannot put their property on the market until they get all of these documents ready, we would put quite a substantial burden on people to upload those costs in anticipation of a sale that may or may not occur. Even for some sales, we will have people who must deal with probates and are selling the property as part of the administration of an estate. They will not have that money to upload it and will have to try and then borrow it. That is therefore an extra risk on people. My concern is that this could cause delays and almost stop people from putting up properties, and we do not want that. We do want people putting up their properties and getting their properties out there.

There is also a lot of timelines as one must have documents. I found having perused the Bill, and this is just me as a conveyancer who deals with property, that there are a lot of sections where I ask whether we are meant to do this or that. If we are in that space, there will be confusion and different opinions. One opinion could that with a reference to the document means they must all be within one year of when the property is placed on the market. Yet, the Bill states refers in section 3(1)(c) to "an Architect’s Certificate of Compliance with planning permission". That leads me to ask whether they are meant to be updated, which would be a substantial new burden on a seller that does not currently exist with the way that we run property.

I thank the witnesses for coming today. I also thank Deputy MacSharry for bringing forward this sensible Bill.

I listened to both organisations with an open mind and they have completely convinced me that this is a practical Bill. While I do not dismiss what Ms McKiernan said about there being extra complications and concern about uploading the financial burden and all the rest, that will still be required whether before the seller's pack is ready or afterwards. I do not have anything more to add other than to say the witnesses have convinced me even more that we must continue with this important piece of work.

I am the current president of IPAV and I want to revisit the comment that front-loading all the documents will delay property going on the market. It certainly is not going to delay a property going on the market; in fact, it will help that property. We, as agents, meet vendors on a daily basis. We say to them the list of documents that they need to put their properties on the market. Approximately 70% of my vendors come back to me and say that they have gone to their solicitors to request these documents and to get things in line with the property going on the market. Seventy per cent of them have come back to say their solicitors have advised them that the documents will not be ready until the property goes sale agreed. That is 70% of people now who are putting properties on the market and none of the documents are ready. We go through the process of putting a house on the market, we go through the viewings, we show the property and we move to sale agreed, which all takes six to eight weeks. After a property has been made sale agreed, the solicitor produces the contract and it is then that issues come to light so the purchasers then have to go through all of that. By the time the contract is completed, the period will have reached ten to 13 weeks but a lot of those buyers will have given notice to their landlords, engaged engineers and paid for that, paid their bank valuer to conduct their mortgage bank valuation or have architects and engineers in, which all costs. Those buyers will have spent the bones of €2,000 or €3,000 on a property but issues come to light and, therefore, they cannot buy the property. They are then back on the property market hunting but they have already lost €2,000 or €3,000. By front-loading and getting all of these documents, we are saying to them that this is the property they are looking at, this is the property that is on the market, this is the property with all the documents, it is in good hands, it is a property that can be sold and bought and, therefore, come and view the property and bid. It is not the reverse of that. I have had very many purchasers come back to me, and they are extremely frustrated and upset about it. They are out of accommodation which leads to another problem, and that is the rental market, as we all know but they are already at a loss because they cannot buy this property. The time delay the solicitors are outlining is incorrect. If the property comes to the market, at least we know we have a saleable product, like a car as Mr. Davitt said, or like anything else that comes to the market.

We need to be able to assure our buyers and vendors that their product is a saleable product. At the moment, many of them, 32%, are not.

As my colleague Ms Eleanor McKiernan pointed out, the significant area of caveat emptor - the idea of "buyer beware" - is a significant change in what is proposed here. The question is about doing that consciously. Doing that and understanding its consequences is a significant part of what we are questioning here. There is no doubt about that because if that is the fundamental shift in what we do, we will look to be very clear that this is the case.

To qualify what I am saying, I have had no involvement at all in conveyance of property at any stage. I am completely agnostic regarding this and know nothing about it other than what I am reading here. I am very concerned about what the witnesses said on that. Basically, the principle that the Law Society is working from is "buyer beware". It is up to the buyer. The whole process is started when the buyer gets involved, which slows the whole thing down. It seems the process is trying to ensure that some of the things that cause delays in the process are upfront and put in front of the buyer before they get involved and agree that they want to do it. That seems to be perfectly reasonable and I do not see why it should be a problem. Obviously it is a problem in terms of solicitors going through their work, loading on fees and stuff like that.

Even with all the stuff loaded upfront, a person still has to check it to make sure it is right because, God knows, solicitors and buyers will game the system as well and say things they may not necessarily write. There are still going to be delays in checking and verifying the processes that have been used. Were I to buy a property, I would like to think my solicitor would not take the word of the vendor on what they are doing. I know of cases where people have taken the word of the vendor and ended up badly stung. I just wonder how the whole process is going to work out. The principle of buyer beware, which the Law Society referred to, seems to be the problem. If that is the problem, what is the workable alternative?

I am 40 years in the business and every day of the week we deal with people buying houses. We do our best. I concur with what my colleague has said. First, I give people a list of things to be sorted out. The price of the property is put on the market. Our biggest enjoyment is to get first-time buyers a house and out of the rental sector. The biggest difficulty is when the sales go on and on and the next thing the mortgage is out of date. If a buyer is self-employed, it is very difficult to get that mortgage again. If they give the notice on 30 March, they have to buy the rented house and it still goes on for extra two or three months. We get the calls all the time because we are dealing with people. We know exactly what can happen.

What I said earlier is that if it is front-loaded and there is a cost where the vendor is paying €300 or €400 for a BER certificate beforehand, they will pay an extra €500 or €600 as part-payment and then pay the total when the sale has gone through. We did surveys throughout Europe which found that 28 days was the average sale time. In Ireland, we hear the average is four and a half months but I believe it is closer to six months at the moment. We deal with it every day of the week. It takes six months, there will be more arguments and difficulties.

There is one other issue. Gazumping is mentioned in the newspapers. We do not gazump, but if an offer comes in for a property after it has gone sale agreed, we are obliged by law to let the vendor know. The vendor can say they are not happy with how long the process has gone on, things have changed and they want more money. That looks bad for us at the end of the day. All we want to do is get an exclusion for this, front-load it and get the ammunition ready. A lot of that can be done fairly quickly. Do not tell me it is a cost thing because we do not get costs upfront either. The whole thing is to get the process flowing. It flows throughout Europe. We can blame digital, banks and everything else but the day-to-day issue is to get people out of the rental sector and into a property.

We all share the same frustrations and they are coming out today. The point here, as I understand the Bill, is that the pack will be provided to three or four people bidding on a property and they will want to investigate it. If there is a surveyor's report or any other certification in it, will they take the risk on the pack or will they want it investigated? I believe they will want it investigated. I do not believe any of our members would advise a client otherwise than to look into it. That will, as it does in an auction situation, introduce three or four other solicitors or other parties into the process and that is inevitably going to involve costs. There is more work in this for more solicitors, in fact, which is counterintuitive. The point is that solicitors are very frustrated with the system as it is and want to see significant reform.

My colleague, who has more practical experience than I do, will speak shortly. My understanding of the reading of the Bill is that if there are three or four people bidding on the property, they will be provided with the pack and they will engage with professionals to ensure that the largest purchase of their lives is protected. I imagine that would be the case. I do not believe that is intended by the Bill but it is currently in the Bill, and that would be a consequence of it. I would not like to see unintended consequences brought into legislation.

It would very much depend on each property in each case. If we take the seller's legal pack, as part of the proposed process, before a property is put up for sale, a contract for sale has to be produced and all of the title documents have to be put into the pack, which will go to any buyer who is interested in the property. I presume any buyer looking at that will go to their solicitor and raise queries with the vendor's solicitors. That brings the sale into more of an auction scenario, which is a much higher cost base for any seller, but also for buyers because buyers will be asked to look at that contract before they even agree to bid on a property. The current position is that the minute the sale is agreed, the contract will issue. In our new guide, which we recently launched, we encourage and want people to let their solicitor know as soon as possible once a sale has been agreed. The first thing we do is request the title deeds from the bank because there can be delays of weeks receiving those. Once we get the deeds, we can start legals properly.

On the timing issues and the types of properties on the market, Deputy Pringle is correct on the data room in which these documents are put up. Of course they have to be investigated. I encourage them to be investigated. We also have to remember that a solicitor drafts these documents and puts them into a data room. One would imagine that another solicitor who looks at them would find them equally as good as the person who put them up did. There may well be some disputes along the way with them, but that is the time - at the beginning - when they would be sorted out. Of course, somebody will have to be paid to do that but a buyer is spending €300,000, €400,000, €500,000, or maybe more, on a property, so why would they not spend a bit of money to investigate the title documents? At least they are there to be investigated. This is happening every day of the week. We have receivers putting property up for auction every day of the week and those documents are up online. Of course they are investigated by solicitors acting for the purchasers. Why would they not be?

I will make one further point about properties and doing a seller's pack when we do not know whether a sale will happen or not. This is exactly what we are trying to cut out. We are trying to cut that out because people are putting too many properties on the market to test the market. We are trying to cut those properties out. We are trying to make sure that if somebody goes to the expense of getting the proper documentation upfront and paying for it, they will only do so when they are serious. At the moment, an auctioneer would sell any property. Auctioneers have a reliance on properties they have on their books, some of which may not be saleable.

There might be a dispute here or there, or whatever the case may be. There will always be several properties on the books or in the office, maybe eight or ten, depending on the size of the agent involved. The same auctioneers would not have one, because every property that goes on the market is being sold, except for those that people do not want to buy. An important point to make is that people paying to get this information and then perhaps not selling their property is a one in a million thing. There are some, there is no doubt about it, but they are very few and this will cut out a few that should not be there anyway.

In Ireland, it is a legal principle that you buy on notice of the physical state, condition and repair of the property. It is not the legal title, that is different and is governed by the conditions of sale. Regarding the physicality of the property, if we look at this Bill, it is suggesting that we would start furnishing those from the vendor, surveys and reports on the physical state of the property. At present, that is not something that is in the legal system in Ireland at all. If that was to happen, it would be a fundamental change.

Would that not give greater confidence to somebody who wants to buy a house? When someone comes to you to do the buying of the property and he or she can produce all this documentation that states it is a good house, it is sturdy, it has the construction, the planning, no retention is required and so on. Would that not give you greater confidence and cut out a lot of the over and back questioning that the witnesses have said takes months? Would it not cut out all of that?

That speaks to what Mr. Garrett was saying, in that one can do that, but does it not make time and cost more efficient when there is a document in front of you that gives so much information without having to spends months on it? I acknowledge there will always be further teasing out that has to be done but is it not that a lot of the donkey work or spade work, if you like, has already been done for you?

In general, we are largely talking about the idea of simplifying the system and bringing things in. We do not however, want to do so in a way that will not be clear about the consequences of different things. We think there is more clarity needed and there is more need to look at areas such as this. Could one advise somebody to say that if he or she has a surveyor on behalf of the seller, that this will not be investigated? Our guide also encourages the idea that people should have the documents upfront-----

It has the potential to do that. There are significant opportunities in this and that is the point that we are making. There is a lot there but we need to be careful and some clarity is required. We can go into detail about some of those things. We suggest the principles of this, in terms of trying to have things upfront and if the caveat emptor rule is changed in terms of people taking on that responsibility, would be a much more significant change in the overall scheme of things.

Coming back to caveat emptor, we are suggesting that an engineer's report be put in as part of the package but we are not saying that that is obligatory. We will look at the buyers as well and say that they are more than welcome to get in their own engineer's report, and many of them do. Currently, we find that many of our purchasers ask whether the vendor has done an engineer's report on it and whether another engineer has done a report on it. It saves them time and money. Some of them will accept it, some solicitors will accept it but, in some cases, we advise getting their own engineer's report done if they feel like getting it done. We are not taking the caveat emptor away, we are still saying buyer beware and do your own diligence. What we are saying is there is a report there - a survey - should the person want to look at it and should that person be happy with accepting it, but by all means that person can get his or her own one done as well. We are not changing that caveat emptor rule. We still say one should do one's own due diligence but we simply are providing an extra layer to it. That is it.

The witnesses' submission notes issues such as right of way, extensions without planning permission, boundary issues, septic tanks outside the boundary and planning permission issue represent 85%, 80%, 65% and 61% of issues.. They could all be sorted out initially before a property could be put on the market but the Law Society states that if I am buyer, I have to verify that those are correct and that they have been done. That is where the delays are coming in the process. If those were done beforehand and presented to one's solicitor, at least then one knows that something has been done. It could, however, still be falsified at some stage by somebody. There seems to be a delay in the bank's release of the deeds or deeds not being available to the vending solicitor and the issue of deeds seems to be causing more of the problems or delays as well. That could be dealt with by the solicitor. The information presented in the package and given to the solicitor still needs to be verified as correct by the solicitor. Is that right?

I can answer that. We drafted this particular document to give a certainty to people of what the problems are at present. These documents that we are speaking about are going to be drafted by solicitors and put into a pack. We would not see any reason a solicitor would draft them and they would not be correct. Another solicitor can check them of course, because maybe they did not leave something in or took something out or whatever the case may be, but we would expect them to be correct. We would not expect them to be incorrect. If they are putting them into a pack, we would expect the documents there to be right.

Section 3 of the Bill is where we talk about additional documents. We are speaking about additional documents here and we have no intention of changing the law currently from buyer beware. That is not what this Bill is about. Section 3(2) is about additional documents that may, at a later date, be added to the Bill. If we were in Scotland today, there would be an engineer's report on a person's property and indeed, it might be in the not-too-distant future that other people might be proposing that that be the case in Ireland. Again, that is not going to solve or take away from the problem that we are speaking about. We are speaking about documents that currently are being prepared when a property is sale agreed. Those documents are holding up sales and we need to get them done beforehand.

All we are trying to do is something to help the sales process. That is it. We are quite happy to work with the Law Society and anyone else that is interested. If it sees a better way of drafting this, we are quite happy to do that, but-----

Again, we are very happy to work with anybody. What we are trying to achieve here is a better system. The frustrations that our solicitors have on behalf of their clients, are significant. There is constant highlighting of where the delays and frustrations are in that regard. A huge amount of reform is required. If we want to do so, root and branch, that will be a significant piece of work and we are very happy to be involved in that. We encourage anybody to do as much preparation as possible in advance of sales, because that will help the process. There is no doubt about it. Engaging with professionals, with IPAV members, Law Society members and others well in advance of sales, will solve problems. We have no doubt about that.

There is a need to ensure that we do not have unintended consequences, because some of the issues we are clarifying will potentially cause problems down the line. There will be additional costs, as drafted, and we are happy to engage and look at some of these areas as well. The frustrations that have come back in respect of delays, for weeks and months, relate to the 15 parties that we look at across the conveyancing process. We have a system that has been developed over decades and centuries, which is absolutely out of date and antiquated. It has huge costs for everybody involved, far beyond what there should be. I do not know anybody who has been involved in this process who is not frustrated by it. This is a key element of what we are looking to achieve here.

We have highlighted a number of other areas which we feel-----

Clearly, we need to bank what we agree on and there is a lot we do agree on. I am looking at it from both sides of the argument but I think we need to step into the shoes of the young people trying to buy properties. At the moment, they are incurring costs such as engineer's reports, getting architects out to check this and check that and trying to get loan approval, which expires after a certain time and then they have to go through the entire process again. It is hugely frustrating and we are talking about possibly incurring costs from a legal perspective if this legal pack is adopted. They are incurring costs anyway. With all due respect, I listened to the argument and I am not convinced by the argument put forward. Ms McKiernan made the point that this the way we have always done things. I fully accept that solicitors are there to protect their clients but the fact we have always done it this way does not make it right because clearly it is not right.

If I step into the shoes of a young couple trying to purchase a house and I know when I see a property on the market for sale, it is clearly fully compliant in all aspects. At least I know I am not wasting my time and if I so wish to get my own architect, my own surveyor and my own engineer to look over everything, that is fine. At least I know if I start the process of bidding on this property, the pack that is presented by the seller is fully compliant and I can conclude that sale. At the moment I do not and I am incurring cost and frustration because of that. Clearly, we need to step into the shoes of the purchaser when we are looking at this because it is not working. It is hugely frustrating and it ends up in rows at the end of the process and I would contend that the witnesses are experiencing that frustration. I know for a fact that IPAV members are because they are the first point of contact. The purchasers cannot always get in contact with their solicitor or sellers but they can get the auctioneers and it is hugely frustrating. It is broken, it needs to be fixed and I would contend that this measure goes a long way to fixing it.

The only thing I do want to stress is that caveat emptor still applies right up until such time as the contract is signed. We all know that in the case of a purchaser who is purchasing a property, it is buyer beware but if we as an agent go to take a property from a vendor and know something is wrong with the property, by law the agent cannot tell the purchaser of that property that there is something wrong with it. We have to take the instructions from our vendor, by law. We have to make sure we are well aware of the facts. We are trying to relieve the frustrations that the Law Society has and that other people have, and we are trying to put them all together. We are quite happy that if we get everybody working together, who knows?

I apologise but I was in the Chamber earlier. I have one query that may have been covered already in relation to executor sales. I will declare that I am a solicitor and have bought and sold the odd house over the years. As for the biggest delay I have seen, from people talking to me the delay in the probate office is something I hear about time and again. What are the requirements and who will pay the solicitor for doing all the work when there is an executor involved and is dealing with the solicitor for the estate? How will that be addressed in the Bill or will it be addressed where probate has not been granted?

Where probate has not been granted it is slightly trickier than it is with an ordinary sale where someone is just selling a property. Obviously, the probate office is involved and it is involved from the point of view of getting the probate for the property and the executors are the other side of it. They are actually going to get the property and they are going to sell them. From that point of view, the solicitor is acting for the executors of that property. In that situation, you would imagine the executors are going to pay the solicitors for doing their work because they are going to get paid from the estate. I am not informed enough on the legal end of it to know anything different but that is what I would imagine.

At the moment, we recommend to our members that they do not take a property that is in probate and put it on market. We recommend that to our members. I am not saying that all our members actually follow the advice but that is what we recommend. Until such time as the probate comes out for that property we say to our members do not put on the property on the market. In terms of who pays who at the end of the day, I would imagine the estate pays the solicitors but I cannot-----

From what I can see, a lot of houses are put on the market before the probate is granted. That is why people come to our offices to ask can we lobby the probate office in Letterkenny - not usually the one in Tralee, in fairness to them, they are fairly good there - and see what can be done to speed up the process. I imagine where the whole estate might be a house and maybe a very small bit of money, that there could be difficulties with the families saying well, there are three people, we have to prepare packs for three different proposed purchasers, going to the rest of the family and saying this is what it is going to cost, do IPAV foresee that might be a problem?

Somebody is going to have to pay for them anyway, whether they are paid upfront, behind or wherever they are paid. The documentation is going to have to be assembled because we know that a solicitor on the other side acting for a purchaser will not accept any documentation unless it is satisfactory to that solicitor. We know that documentation will have to be collated. Whether it is assembled upfront or wherever, they still have to be paid for.

We talked about a two-pronged system where the conveyancing would be done upfront because we thought that were the legal end of things done upfront through the pack and were the conveyancer occupation then to come into process, as was discussed by the Minister for Justice some time ago, the conveyancing would be the second part of the process to happen. Now, that does not seem like it will happen. We would imagine that during the whole process, the solicitor will either get paid a certain amount of money upfront or will wait until the actual sale of the property goes through and then will get paid. As it is, agents have to do that.

This seller's pack is nearly working already in certain places. If you have been developing 40 houses, and you sell the first three or four houses, it is going to take three or four months at least to get those few houses through. The pack is then there for the remaining 36 houses and they will go through in two months, and that happens. The rest are then flowing. Why can that not be done for an individual house? That is all I am saying.

With due respect to my colleagues on the left, I was in Blackhall Place nine years ago trying to get things sorted out. It will be another 20 years of it unless we get the bull by the horn and get this sorted out and get passed, for the good of everybody. The six months will turn into a year otherwise.

I know that when you are going to a bank and you are trying to get the funeral paid for, that can be difficult and can exhaust the relatively small amount of money. Do the witnesses anticipate there could be problems in taking money out of the accounts to pay for any of this work that will have to be done prior to the seller's pack being prepared by the solicitors?

On probate, while the banks will pay for funeral expenses in certain circumstances, they will not release moneys until the grant of probate actually issues and there are substantial delays in the probate office at the moment in dealing with probate. We are again asking people to pay upfront a lot of cost and expense when normally they have the property on the market and they know that it is selling.

To come back on that, the property cannot sell until the probate issues anyway. so again, we are advising, as Mr. Davitt said, many of our vendors not to put the property on the market until we are maybe two months or three weeks from probate being granted. We would then go on the market. That property would sell within three or four weeks, that is a given.

I have listened keenly to Mr. Garrett and Ms McKiernan but I am curious if the process as to how we have come to this point has been a problem.

As the witnesses are agreeing with a lot of the things the IPAV has highlighted and with what it wants to achieve, I am curious as to whether they talked to each other beforehand. Is it the process through which we got here that the Law Society is not happy with? I do not know. The witnesses seem to want to get to the same place but for some reason, they do not appear to want to pull together and unfortunately, the average person on the ground selling houses is feeling the effects of that. I spoke earlier about an odd red herring but from what I can see, there seems to be a shoal of them here today. After listening to some of the answers, I firmly believe that. We are talking about caveat emptor. That is the belt but the IPAV is trying to provide braces as well, so the information is there. That applies until somebody signs a contract, as we know. Questions are being asked, but we are being given different answers. There appears to be two different sets of music playing. Reading between the lines, there seems to be non-harmonisation between the two bodies.

It seems to me to be very childish that we cannot move on when this is for the betterment of the country and the law and for sellers and buyers. Whatever amendments have to be made, make them if that is the way forward. If the Bill is not going to be legal and will be thrown out in due course that is one thing but these people are happy enough with it.

I will comment. As we stated constantly here today, we are seeing huge overlap in terms of what we are trying to achieve. We do have questions and we are not able to provide the certainty of those promoting the Bill in saying this is what it will do. We are asking some questions. If we take the simple act of a surveyor’s report in the seller's pack, what legal implications does that have? Does that shift the legal obligation to the seller from the position of the buyer or does it put the professional indemnity insurance of the person providing that to the seller or the buyer into play? We do not know the answers to those questions. We cannot give answers to those questions. We are saying we want to be very clear on the Bill and we are happy to engage about questions around things like that, as well as the potential costs of areas about which we have concerns. There will be more parties involved, not less. Those are concerns we have expressed in good faith through this process. They are genuine in these circumstances. There is clarity in regard to this in that it seems that it will not apply to the sale of multiple units for example but to single units. That is in the Bill. There are a number of other areas where we have questions in respect of its impact. What we are raising here are legitimate questions to a very significant legal process on which people rely for the purchase of the biggest cost of their lives. That warrants scrutiny. We welcome the fact that the committee is doing that, that is genuine. We come here in good faith for that purpose.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I have no idea what the last speaker was speaking about. There is no surveyor's report included in the Bill. We have to go outside of the Bill to bring this in to talk about it. If this is one of the problems, then I have no idea what we are talking about. This is not included in the Bill; it is included as a possibility down the road. The second thing I want to say, which is very important, is that we are available to meet representatives of the Law Society at any time. We are delighted to meet them because we recognise and appreciate them as being the Law Society of Ireland and they obviously are a lot more eloquent in the law then are we.

To be clear, this is considered in section 3(2)(a). It is there in the Bill and it will be interesting to see what the legal impact of that means. We are not saying that it "must", nobody suggested that the word is there, as it is not but we do believe that those are legitimate questions. That is all.

I will draw a line there. The witnesses can discuss this outside. I thank the contributors who came in to give us the benefit of their experience and knowledge. I propose that we publish the opening statements from the two groups on the committee's website. We will suspend briefly to allow the changeover of witnesses.

I thank everyone for being here and I am delighted to welcome the proposer of this Bill, Deputy Marc MacSharry. The purpose of this part of the meeting is to continue the detailed scrutiny of the Seller's Legal Pack for Property Buyers Bill 2021. This public briefing is with the sponsor of the Bill and will be followed by an engagement with members of the committee. On behalf of the committee, I thank Deputy MacSharry for his work and for coming to join us this afternoon. I invite him to set out the reasons he is proposing this Bill.

I do not want to be repetitive as members have heard a lot of the IPAV’s address in terms of the why. The Law Society has outlined a few things I want to comment on. The committee also has received legal advice from the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Advisers, the content of which I will not talk about but I do have a public comment to make. I realise we will have an opportunity to talk in private session later.

The positives are there. We are trying to quicken the process. Nobody is trying to reinvent the wheel. What we are doing in effect is changing the sequencing of what already happens. The biggest concern from the Law Library seems to be that they will have to pay themselves more money. In my experience, that is a matter exclusively for them. They feel that all of these queries are going to be front-loaded, even though they already are for a public auction and the online sales and I think Senator Davitt mentioned BidX1 as an example. This is already taking place, it is about sequencing and about putting together the information in advance. There will not be any additional costs. What the Law Society neglected to say, as its parliamentary legal adviser certainly will know, is that as a matter of routine, solicitors take cases for personal injury in advance and will be paid at the end of the process.

It could be many years in terms of things like medical negligence, for example. It seems okay in those instances. They might also take on the execution of a will. We heard extensively earlier about the issues that can arise with probate and so on, and as a matter of routine solicitors and barristers wait for their money until the end of the process. We are trying to speed up a process from an average of about 16 weeks now, and Senator Davitt alluded to Spain where you can turn it around in a month for most things. The term "red herring" was used quite a bit and I believe that is the case.

We had mention of caveat emptor, which absolutely remains. There is no conveyancing until a contract is signed so caveat emptor remains the case right up to and including the last second of the last day. In terms of auctions, and the paperwork being available to anybody who wants, queries come to the auctioneer 99 out of 100 times. An auction takes place, the highest bidder either withdraws and does a deal for a higher price or something is sold. I want to repeat this because I know some colleagues have returned to the Public Gallery. As a matter of routine, solicitors take public injury cases and will be paid at the end. As a matter of routine, solicitors take on the execution of a will and will be paid after probate. As a matter of routine, they take on any amount of litigation cases.

In terms of additional cost, I do not know why the Law Society would not be open to let the free market decide because I know many an unscrupulous solicitor who would be quite happy to wait for their pay at the end. Similarly, the additional cost base referred to in auctions typically refers to the rental of a room. It is the same price. I want to sell by auction, that is fine, my fee is 1% plus VAT. That is the end of the story. You will have to answer the questions once, then are we really saying it is going to be difficult to send an email to the auctioneer? The auctioneer can disseminate all the information that is required. Caveat emptor, as I said, is there until the end.

I know it was suggested that this would interfere with the rights of a person to sell and say you cannot sell unless you do or have this. We already do that in Ireland. You cannot sell without a building energy rating, BER. Are we really saying, and I know this will be for legal advice later and perhaps constitutionally, that there are issues around current auctions? Is there a constitutional issue about an auction? Is there a constitutional issue about an online sale? On interfering with people's rights, and it may come up in legal advice later on in that discussion, we already have a scenario where there are rent pressure zones where people are told "You will not get any more money than this". We already had eviction bans. What is the Attorney General's view on that? What is the advice?

This is not actually about the IPAV and I want to make it clearer. Senior counsel drafted this, having taken account of endless research and discussions, not just nationally but internationally, and put it into an Irish context. It is not there to annoy the Law Society. It is not there to gazump the Government or the Department of Justice who probably should have come up with this legislation themselves many years ago. It is there for the punters and the people. Ultimately, we want to help them and then auctioneers will make more money, they will turn over more property and so will solicitors in terms of legal fees. By the way, I am a licensed auctioneer, a member of the IPAV and I want to declare that interest, but I no longer practise as an auctioneer. I should have declared that at the outset.

The Law Society also mentioned a number of very serious issues they have, for example, with 42 local authorities having different ways of disseminating certain information. Let us get to work on the Local Government (Amendment) Act 1934 and sort that problem out. However, the idea that what is being said is very good here was also referred to. This is useful as part of the debate. Why is it that the legal profession must engage in such an administrative merry-go-round? Here is something we can tangibly do now. It does not solve all the problems but it can solve some.

In the engagement around this Bill and with the Department, there were speeches in the House that looked like a cut and paste from the Law Society's presentation here today and indeed previous presentations. That is unfortunate and I have begun to ask what is the problem. Is it because it was not their idea? It was not mine. I am here as a Teachta Dála, representative of the people, listening to IPAV and others saying "this is something that can tangibly help". The Law Society say "oh we will have to charge more money for that". No it will not. The fee is the fee and they will get paid at the end of the process or let the free market decide. Most people get paid at the end when a sale occurs. That is the practice at the moment.

It is not for the IPAV or the Law Society anymore. It is for this committee to determine whether are we prepared to put this into the House to Committee Stage and allow the Law Society and the IPAV and more important perhaps, the consumer organisations, to send in their amendments through parties, Deputies and Senators to make what the Law Society and everybody else seems to be saying, and we will have another discussion about legal advice later in private, is good and positive. Instead of making a positive contribution to the administrative merry go round and debate, let us bloody well do something for a change.

I thank the Deputy. Are there any members who want to come in with questions? No. I thank Deputy MacSharry for coming along to give us his perspective on the Bill. That concludes the engagement and I thank everyone for their attendance. They are free to withdraw from the meeting but we are going to go into private session now to consider the legal advice. Deputy MacSharry is welcome to stay.