SUPPLY [14TH JULY]—REPORT. (Hansard, 16 July 1890)

§ (5.29.) MR. T. M. HEALY
I have to call attention to what I conceive to be a most remarkable instance of the way in which the Government have allowed legislation passed last year to become a dead letter. I do not know whether Members remember some exciting scenes here on a Saturday in August last year on the discussion of the Public Works Loans Act, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted without a word to drop a clause from that Bill in collusion with the hon. Member for South Hunts and others. It had been decided in Ireland that when loans are advanced by the State to the tenant, and then the tenant is evicted by the landlord, the landlord should get the whole benefit of the loan obtained by the tenant in the way of buildings or drainage, not having a penny to pay the State, but getting the land free of all encumbrance. Of course, that was putting a premium on eviction. This puts a premium upon eviction, because if a tenant borrowed £500 from the Board of Works for 1890 drainage and buildings, the landlord, if he fell into arrear, would be entitled to serve him with a notice, and evict him. Evictions of this kind, with the object of grabbing the money of the State, have been perpetrated in Ireland, and since the recent decision the State has been wholly unable to recover one penny from the landlord. List year the Government brought in a Bill providing that the moment the tenant was evicted the loans should be recoverable as against the landlord, thus giving the tenant something like security in his holding, and giving the landlord no temptation to evict. But the moment this clause was proposed the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved its omission in order that it might be re-cast, and made to apply to future loans only. We resisted that, and a compromise was agreed to, to the effect that the Valuation Commissioners should fix the value of the improvements. If a tenant borrowed only £500 from the State, and the improvements were only worth £150 or £200, it was thought it would be unfair to tax him with the full amount. So anxious were we that equity should be done that we assented to the compromise. The moment the House met this year I asked the Attorney General for Ireland what had been done to enforce the law. The question will be found in Vol. 2, page 853, of this year's Hansard. The right hon. and learned Gentleman replied that he had made inquiry on the subject, and that since the passing of the Act only two cases, which were still under consideration, had come before the Board. Observe, Sir, "since the passing of the Act." Other cases must have occurred previously. I asked him whether the Board of Works would allow the Act to remain a dead letter, or would compel the Magistrates to disgorge. The Attorney General replied that, he had no doubt the attention of the Commissioners would be drawn to the question. The hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly) yesterday, or the day before, put a question to the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) on three specific instances. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was most unsatisfactory, because he practically said he knew nothing whatever about it. I put it to the House whether common honesty towards the State might 1891 not be observed, and whether some attempt ought not to be made to compel the landlord to pay the amount due to the State. You are very ready to charge the tenants with dishonesty, but here you are yourselves neglecting to prevent dishonesty on the part of the landlords. We detected you last year in an attempt to prevent this clause being made retrospective We caught you in the act. The incident is reported in Hansard, vol. 406, page 434, of last year. My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), myself, and others, made a vigorous fight, and, after a long discussion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave way. His words are thus reported:—

§ *Mr. GOSCHEN
If we can remedy the retrospective character of the clause that is all we desire. We will consent to report Progress, and I will endeavour on Monday to see whether we can deprive the section of its retrospective character."
But you did not alter it, The section stands as it was originally proposed, with the subsequent qualification that the valuation was to be assessed by the Valuation Department under rules which were to be made. I would like to know whether those rules have been made. I ask for a Return of all the money the State has lost by reason of the merging of the two estates in the landlord's hands. There ought not to be one law for tenants and another for landlords.

§ (5.41.) MR. MADDEN
The Section to which the hon. and learned Member has drawn attention referred to loans made to tenants under the Act of 10th Vict. It was decided that these loans were made to the tenants on the security of the tenants only, that the landlord was not privy to the loan, and if from any reason the tenancy expired, and the security came to an end, there was no further security. It was to meet this that the Act was introduced, and it provided that the charge should become a charge on the estate of the landlord, but only to the extent of the improved value. As to the extent to which this has been actually worked, I have, of course, no information. I have communicated with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson), and we are ready to grant a Return of cases under the Act to which the provision of last year would be applicable. I should prefer the hon. and learned Gentleman to frame the Return.

§ (5.42.) MR. T. M. HEALY
I have no option but to accept the Return, but I take the right hon. Gentleman's statement as an admission that the law has been allowed by the Government to fall into contempt, and that they have done nothing whatever to make the landlords pay their full and just share.