HL Deb 14 August 1890 vol 348 cc933-41

House in Committee (according to order).

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

I have an Amendment for the insertion of a new clause providing that notice of a loan shall be given to the owner-in-fee. I think your Lordships will consider it absolutely fair, as a change was made last year in the law relating to loans under this Act by which, up to that time, as I stated to your Lordships the other night in asking a question of the Lord Privy Seal, a tenant was liable for his own loans, contracted as they often certainly are without the knowledge or against the consent of the landlord. By the change last year the owner-in-fee at the time of the determination of the tenancy was suddenly made liable. That was altered to a certain extent, no doubt, after some discussion in another place, so that the owner-in-fee should not be liable for the whole of the loan, but only to the extent of the improved value of the land at the time of the determination of the tenancy. Now, all I ask of your Lordships is that, as the owner of the fee has been placed in an entirely different position to that which he occupied before by that very great change in the law, he should have notice. I earnestly hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be able to give me a satisfactory answer. By the first paragraph of the clause which I wish to have inserted notice is to be given to the owner-in-fee, and that he should have power to inspect copies of the plans and specifications. By the second paragraph the owner-in-fee is empowered to oppose and prevent a loan on sufficient proof to the Commissioners that it is unnecessary or unsuitable to the holding. Could anything be fairer than that? It is for the benefit of the tenant as well as of the owner-in-fee that an unsuitable work should not be placed upon the holding. It cannot be injurious to the interests of either to prevent it. Then, by my next paragraph I ask, and this is distinctly in the interest of the State, that no insolvent man, or a man who is really not a fit and proper person, should be granted a loan, and that, in fact, the owner-in-fee should be able to appear and prove, if he is able, that fact to the Commissioners. The Commissioners are in Dublin, and they have no opportunity of knowing the position or circumstances of tenants as the owners have, who with their agents and bailiffs know, unfortunately too well in some instances, how extremely impecunious many of their tenants are. It is outrageous that a tenant who would be unable to go to a bank, having no security under all these Land Acts to offer them for advancing him a loan, should be able to obtain a loan from the Board of Public Works, which a bank would not give. Therefore, I maintain that it is not only in the interest of the owner, but of the State, that such loans should not be given. My next paragraph is with regard to the arrangement that the Board of Works should not issue the whole of the loan until a satisfactory proportion of the work had been done; that they should pay one instalment, and not pay the second until a certain larger portion of the work had been done. I only ask that they should not be paid over the whole of the money until they have proved that the work has been well done, and that the money advanced has been properly expended. Who is so capable of giving proof to the contrary, if such be the case, than the man who is generally resident in the place, the owner-in-fee? The next paragraph—they are all directed to the same thing, and I am sorry to have to detain your Lordships so long in regard to them—is, that the loans or the work shall not be altered or increased without notice being given to the owner-in-fee. I think your Lordships will agree with me that these proposals are absolutely fair. All I ask is that there should be notice given to the owner. You have changed the law in regard to his liability, and I ask that he should have notice when one of these loans is to be advanced. There is no doubt in the world-—I know it personally from my own knowledge of affairs in Ireland—that these loans have been, in many instances, extremely improperly granted; and not only that, but that they have not been properly administered or used for the purpose for which they were obtained. The Lord Privy Seal may perhaps reply that the Board of Works Inspector would see what was going on, and would report if the work was not being properly done; but, from what we see continually happening, these loans are improperly granted and expended. If the noble Lord doubts what I say let him look at the end of the Bill, where there is actually a provision in the Schedule for forgiving loans to men who should never have received them. If these men are not able to repay the loan, I ask, why should they have had money granted to them by the State? I hold that it is absolutely fair, not only in the interest of the owner-in-fee, but in the interest of the State, and I may say in the interests of everybody, that this notice should be given. If the law has been changed in one direction, why should not you change it in this respect? Certainly the Board of Works have found out for themselves that there is a deficiency in this Act; they have discovered that there is no arrangement for notice, and, therefore, they have provided for it themselves. I hold one of the forms of notice in my hand, and I must say it is entirely fallacious. I draw the noble Lord's attention particularly to this point. There is a Memorial to be filled up in the case of a loan being obtained, and one of the conditions is that the memorialist is to name the owner. Well, who is the owner he names? Why the immediate owner, not the owner-in-fee. There is no necessity whatever for his naming the owner-in-fee, and there may be three or four men between the owner-in-fee and the immediate owner. The notice which the Board of Works issues is to "the owner;" they do not say anything about the owner-in-fee. Therefore, I maintain that it is only fair and only just that the owner-in-fee, who will be made responsible for the loan, should have notice. As I have said, the Board of Works only gives notice to the owner and the name of the owner may be filled in falsely, and, no doubt, often is in these cases. Your Lordships may ask why do the Inspectors pass loans under improper circumstances. Well, you are no doubt aware that things are often done in a very slipshod way in Ireland, and, in these days, everything is done in favour of the tenant and against the landlord. An Inspector goes down to examine, and is shown the building or work that is being done, and he says—"Well, the tenant has gone to some expense in putting up this building or doing this work, and if I do not allow this loan he will be 'broke;' the man has, after all, laid out a certain amount of money, though the work is not well done, and I think we ought to give the advance to him." Drains may have been filled in, and the Inspector cannot say whether they are properly done. In 1887 there was an arrangement made—Mr. Parnell himself moved it—by which leaseholders should have two years within which to apply to the Court to have their rents fixed; and last year the Chief Secretary for Ireland gave them another 18 months. This year, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, another 12 months was given them. As I have said, Mr. Parnell himself moved it originally in another place, and there is now to be two years and six months' time given in addition. This is a proof that everything is done for the tenant in Ireland. I venture to put it to your Lordships, is it not wise and necessary to have some kind of finality in these matters? I hope the noble Lord will see his way to allowing these Amendments, because it cannot be denied that they are absolutely fair, and I think it is not very much to ask on the part of the landlords in Ireland who have been suddenly made liable for loans contracted by the tenants, probably against their consent, that they should have notice before these loans are issued. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment moved, after Clause 4, page 2, to insert a new Clause as follows:— ''Whereas under the fifth section of the Public Works Loans Act, 1889, it was enacted that certain rentcharges therein mentioned should, upon the cesser or determination of the particular estates therein referred to, become a charge upon the fee simple and inheritance of the land: Be it therefore enacted as follows:— The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, on receipt of any application by memorial from any person occupying lands merely as a tenant thereof for a loan in accordance with the provisions of the Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1847, and the Acts amending and extending the same, shall cause notice thereof to be served on the owner or owners of the fee simple and inheritance of the lands the subject of such memorial, and the persons so served shall be at liberty to inspect all plans and specifications lodged with the said Commissioners in reference to the said lands, and to obtain copies of same according to the rules and regulations of the said Commissioners. All persons served with such notice shall be entitled to oppose such memorial for a loan, and prevent same being granted on proof in the mode provided for by rules to be made by the said Commissioners that the works suggested are unnecessary or unsuitable to the nature of the holding, or that for any other reason they would either not be an improvement to the said lands, or would be injurious to the interests of the persons beneficially entitled to the fee simple and inheritance in said lands, or that by reason of insolvency or for any other cause the person bringing forward such memorial is not a proper person to be entrusted with an advance under the said Acts. The said Commissioners shall not pay the first or any future instalment of the said loan if any persons served with notice as aforesaid shall prove to the satisfaction of the said Commissioners that the amount of such instalment has not been expended properly or at all on the works in respect of which the said loan was granted, and upon such proof it shall be optional to the person so proving to himself complete said work. The plans and works in respect of which said loan was made shall not be altered, nor shall the said loan be increased, unless and until due notice of such alteration or increase shall be, served on the like persons as are provided for under this section, and the persons so served shall be entitled to prevent such alteration or increase being made or granted on proof of the like matters as are referred to in this section."—(The Lord Tyrone [M. Waterford.])

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Apart from the merits of the Bill, I entertain very serious doubts as to the competency of your Lordships' House to alter it. It is a Money Bill dealing with sums annually voted on certain conditions on the part of the persons who receive the loans, which are sums advanced for the purposes limited in the Bill and under the qualifications inserted in it. I am not at all contesting the right of this House to reject the Bill altogether, but I entertain the most serious doubt as to whether it is not a most serious invasion of the particular privilege of the House of Commons to impose further restrictions upon the granting of these sums. Before my noble Friend replies, I feel it my duty to call the attention of the Chairman of the Committee to the nature of the discussion in which we are engaged.

THB MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

I do not, of course, desire to dispute what the noble and learned Lord has said, but I would point out that his objection would be met if two words in the last paragraph are left out. I have made inquiries in another place, and I am informed that if those words are left out no objection can be made, and I am quite ready to omit them. Beyond that, there is not a word connected with money in it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am afraid I cannot quite acquiesce in that view, and it rather seems to me that the advice the noble Marquess has received is suicidal, because if, in order to bring it within the law of Parliament, as I have pointed out, the conditions under which these loans are made are not to be altered, there can be no further limitation imposed.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

No; the words are "shall not be increased."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Those words have been struck out. It is "unless and until notice shall have been served" upon the person as provided by the 1st section. My commentary only had reference to what appears to me to be the inconsistency of the argument, and I would call your Lordships' attention to a Resolution which we have repeatedly acquiesced in. On the 3rd July, 1778, a Resolution was passed which we have constantly recognised as being the law of Parliament, that— All supplies and aids to His Majesty in Parliament are the sole gift of the Commons, and that all such grants ought to rest with the Commons, and that It is the sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such House the ends, purposes, consideration, limitations, and qualifications of such grants which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords. It seems to me impossible to contend that the proposal of the noble Marquess does not come within the prohibition contained in those words, as it would constitute a condition upon which is to depend the advance of the money which the Commons have agreed to grant.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

I think perhaps I might meet the objection, if the noble and learned Lord will agree, by only proposing my Amendment down to the word "Commissioners," which will make it merely refer to the notice.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the noble Marquess will forgive me, I do not think he quite sees the point of my observation. By the hypothesis of his Amendment the Commons have agreed to advance certain sums on the conditions contained in the Statute as it now stands, and the noble Marquess now proposes to put in a limitation upon the power to advance that money by prescribing that that money shall not be advanced unless a certain notice is given.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

The noble and learned Lord has, I think, misunderstood me. The latter part of the clause no doubt does put a limit upon it, but the first certainly does not; it asks for notice to be given simply.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)

I would ask the noble Lord to pardon me for a moment, as I wish clearly to understand this point. Is it not the case that in the earlier part of the clause it provides for notice being given when the loan is applied for or before it is granted? Is not that so?

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

It is only to cause notice to be given to the proper person instead of to somebody else as at present. It does not make any limitation.

EARL CADOGAN

The notice is in itself a limitation, because, as I understand, if the notice were not given, the provisions in the Act of Parliament could not be carried out.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

It does not provide that the loan shall not be given unless the notice is given.

EARL CADOGAN

Certainly, under the noble Lord's clause, if notice is not given, the transaction wouId not be carried out.

THE MARQUESS of WATERFORD

Just so.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

Then it seems to me that a notice of that kind is one which limits the loans, or imposes further conditions, upon their being granted. But the conditions of the grants cannot be altered by this House. That is, as it appears to me, after hearing what the noble and learned Lord has said.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

Of course, if that is the opinion of both the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the Chairman of Committees, I withdraw my Amendment. Perhaps, however, Her Majesty's Government might consider the question of notice in another Bill next year.

EARL CADOGAN

I may say that one part of the answer which I was instructed to give to my noble Friend consisted of a conditional promise that the matter should be dealt with next year. At present no inconveniences, I believe, have been found to arise from the absence of the notice desired. Clause 6 has been found sufficient to protect the landlord. Still, I would remind the noble Lord that this is an annual Bill; and by the time it comes forward again next year, if any inconvenience has been found to arise, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to endeavour to meet it.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

I will only say that, in my opinion, Clause 6 does not protect the landlord in any way whatever. I have read it.

EARL CADOGAN

The noble Lord read the clause with the exception of the last three lines. I have not the section before me to refer to the actual words, but it provides for the rent-charge, and that the value is to be ascertained by persons who are independent and of high official standing. The way in which that clause bears upon the proposal of my noble Friend is that there is no necessity for notice to the owner if, when the time comes for making the advance, the value has been ascertained by an independent authority, and if the advance is limited by that value.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

I quite understand what the noble Lord has stated; but, at the same time, I will call to his attention that, under the future-purchase Acts, there is very often a loan created on the holding, which comes in before the new loan for purchase. So that a landlord would be prevented selling or dealing with this farm, because that public works loan would come in and reduce the security for this loan for purchase. We are strongly of opinion that this clause does not protect us. However, I hope Her Majesty's Government will consider it.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn; Bill reported without amendment; Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with) Bill read 3a, and passed.