HL Deb 21 June 1892 vol 5 cc1679-86

COMMITTEE.

House in Committee (according to Order.)

Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 6.

*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, to leave out the following words:— And the arrears thereof to an amount not exceeding one year's arrears, accrued before such cesser or determination. I cannot see on what principle the landlord is to be charged one year's arrears, for work that was done on the tenant's holding for the benefit of the tenant, before the termination of the tenancy. Why should not the Board of Works collect the money from the tenant? It is a time when probably the landlord might lose a great deal of money, for rent would in all probability be due, and why should he be responsible for these arrears in addition? Her Majesty's Government in this clause propose to make the estate liable for these charges in future at the end of the tenancy, and that is bad enough surely when it happens. Why should they go further back than the end of the tenancy and charge a year's arrears? We object very much to the way in which the work is done in Ireland—it is very often badly done. Supposing the tenant is in occupation, and has a lease during the last year of his lease he will, naturally, under this clause, not pay the Board of Works; then the Board of Works will not attempt to collect the money from him, because they know they can go to the landlord and make him pay. And the landlord has no means of recovery from the tenant. I must protest against this provision being put into this clause of the Bill, and I beg to move the omission of those words.

Amendment moved, In page 3, line 5, to leave out "and the arrears thereof to an amount not exceeding one year's arrears, accrued before such cesser or determination."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)

EARL CADOGAN

My Lords, I confess I have some sympathy with the grievance of which my noble Friend complains; but I think I ought to remind him that a great deal is covered under this Bill by the veto which I explained at the last stage, which, perhaps, to a certain extent removes the grievance. But my noble Friend complains, as I understand, not of the rent charged, which, naturally, must go on accruing after the determination of the interest, but simply of the year's arrears. I may explain that that was put in as a compromise. Originally the Board of Works, as my noble Friend knows, claimed the whole of the arrears, but after discussion, and as a compromise, it was settled that the rent charged should go on the fee, and one year's arrears. But, as I said before, I have considerable sympathy with my noble Friend, and I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment which will strike out the year's arrears while leaving the rent charged.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

New Clause 7.

*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble Friend for having accepted my first Amendment, and I hope he will treat me equally well on this occasion. This Amendment is taken from the Board of Works Loans Bill of 1889; it proposes merely that if you are going to put this charge upon the fee simple, you should not put on a greater charge than the amount of the value of the improvement at the termination of the tenancy. Supposing £1,000 has been expended on a certain improvement, and whether, from the mis-management, or bad expenditure of money, or from lapse of time, when the landlord comes into possession, that drainage improvement is only worth £500, then only £500 should be charged upon the fee. And very often there is a great deterioration in these improvements; and I do not think, if the owner in fee is to have a charge placed upon his property, it should be a greater charge than the amount of the value of the improvement when he steps in. Therefore, my Lords, I beg to move the insertion of this new clause.

Amendment moved, After Clause 6, page 3, to insert new clause as follows:—"The rent charge charged under the next preceding section of this Act on the fee simple and inheritence shall not exceed the improved value of the land at the time of the cesser or determination of the particular estate, resulting from the outlay of the money advanced on loan, such improved value in the case of dispute to be ascertained by the Commissioner of Valuation in Ireland, in accordance with rules to be made by him."—(The Marquess of Waterford.)

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

My Lords, I think this Amendment ought to be put in. There is no doubt that serious evils do occur from the way in which tenants' improvements are executed under the Act. Cases have come within my own knowledge in which complaints have been made, and admitted at the time, either from some oversight in inspection, or from some direct fraud, in the manner in which the work has been carried on. The result is that, if the landlord has to take to them at the expiry of the term for which the lease has been granted, they are not worth fifty per cent. what they profess to be worth. It is very easy, especially in such a climate as Ireland, to execute building work in such a manner that it may for a time pass muster very respectably, and then from the damp and other causes it gradually goes to decay. It is a very hard thing indeed if, at the end of the lease, the landlord succeeds to that property when it is in a thoroughly depreciated state. He has had no opportunity of prohibiting the improvements, such as they are, being made; he has had no opportunity of inspecting the work in progress, of checking waste, or of seeing that work done originally under these powers should be kept in proper repair; and yet he is to be saddled at the end with the full cost of that work as if for value received; instead of which he gets a very different value indeed from that which the law, as proposed, puts upon it. My Lords, I do not think the Amendment of the noble Marquess goes beyond what is fair and equitable, and I hope your Lordships will accept it.

LORD INCHIQUIN

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble Friend who has just spoken in regard to the proposed Amendment. Only the other day I had, unfortunately, to take up a large farm, the rent of which was £350 a year, and I am sorry to say there was a sum of £1,100, and odd, due on that farm. As I understand I am to be saddled with the charge for drainage works which were supposed to have been executed on that farm. I walked over the whole farm the other day, and I could see no trace of any money having been laid out upon it, certainly within a considerable space of time. In our part of the country it is very frequently the case that tenants borrow money without the landlord having any information about it, or any opportunity of knowing whether it is for the advantage of the estate that it should be borrowed; the tenants are supposed to lay the money out in cleaning drains, and main outfalls, when very often the money, if expended at all, is not expended properly, or to any advantage. If the noble Marquess goes to a Division, which I hope he will, I shall be most happy to support him.

EARL CADOGAN

My Lords, the clause which my noble Friend proposes is applicable to loans made to individuals under the Landed Property Improvement Act when the value deteriorates as time goes on. I think that view is borne out by the speech of my noble Friend who has just sat down. I may point out that the proposed clause is not applicable to loans under the Drainage Acts relating to Drainage Boards, because the benefit to the land is permanent if the drainage works are maintained. I do not know whether my noble Friend sees the point.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

I cannot see why it is not applicable to drainage loans, if it is applicable to other loans. In the Board of Works Loans Act, 1889, these charges were first placed upon the fee, and now, for the first time, under this Drainage Act, you propose to do a similar thing. Why not treat us in a similar way? My noble Friend's argument upon the Second Reading was that it was perfectly fair, under Clause 6, that the landlord should pay because his property would be improved. I only ask that he should pay the amount by which his property is improved, and not the amount of the original improvement.

LORD HERSCHELL

I cannot help suggesting that there is a little inconsistency between this proposal of the noble Marquess, and that which he has just succeeded in carrying; because, if in each case you are to have an inquiry as to whether the amount of the charge will be represented by the improved value, I do not see why the person who owns the land should not be responsible also for the arrears. The fair thing would have been to leave them in if you are to insert this clause.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

I quite see the noble and learned Lord's, argument; but he must remember that this charge is made previously, without the landlord's consent, and he knows nothing about it; but in the question of arrears, this, I understand, only deals with future loans; and I certainly object to the system of putting charges upon property that a man knows, nothing about.

*EARL CADOGAN

Might I say once more that there is a distinction between loans to individuals and loans for drainage purposes to Drainage Boards? In the case of loans to individuals under the Landed Property Improvement Act the value deteriorates as time goes on, which is the point the noble Marquess has made; but this clause which the noble Marquess has moved is not applicable to loans under the Drainage Acts to which the Bill refers.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

I quite agree with my noble Friend that the clause does not apply when benefit remains; but it is only in cases where it does not remain that it can come into operation.

EARL CADOGAN

Not under the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUEY

My Lords, it appears to me that the risk must be with somebody, and it is rather hard to put it upon the lender. If the Treasury lends the money, and; the improvement fails, I should have thought the risk must be with the person who borrows the money. Of course if a person borrows money without his own consent being asked, he is placed in a very hard position; but that, as I understand, is not the provision of the present Bill, because the landlord has the right of refusing to borrow if he likes. If he chooses to borrow it is, surely, hard to put the risk of the operation failing upon the Treasury. My experience is that improvements fail quite as often as they succeed, and therefore, it must be a risk that you must always look to.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

The noble Marquess says that the landlord borrows; really the landlord does not borrow. If a number of landlords agree together to veto the improvement they have the power of refusing; but by his position one man might have a very large estate, and he might be liable for a very high charge.

After some further conversation.

New Clause 7 negatived.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 9.

*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

My Lords, I move to omit this clause because I think it would be very injurious to Ireland to have these very small loans. I think £100 is quite little enough. These small loans are made to very small tenants in Ireland who very often apply for them, and expend no money in carrying out improvements, but do the work themselves, and the work is done badly; and the result of this lending is that we have these clauses that I object to put into the Board of Works Loans Act, and this Drainage Bill every year. The Board of Works is always lending money with out proper security, and it does not see that the work is properly carried out. That is the case all over Ireland; and it is monstrous to be obliged to pay for the bad debts incurred by the Board of Works. I am told they have volumes and volumes full of bad debts. My Lords we have been protesting all along against this system, and I think it would be a great benefit if the law were not altered in this particular, that a less sum than £100 should not be lent.

Amendment moved, in page 3, line 26, to leave out Clause 9.—(The Marquess of Waterford.)

EARL CADOGAN

Might I point out to my noble Friend that this clause does not apply to drainage loans— it applies only to small loans for other purposes? My noble Friend will see that the title of the Bill is, "An Act to amend the law relating to the drainage and improvement of land in Ireland, and for other purposes", and it appeared desirable to make provision for smaller loans for other purposes.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

I think it is a most undesirable thing myself, and I would wish the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) were here because he has protested against the loans over and over again.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

My Lords, very often, in the case of these small loans, by the time the land, for which they were borrowed, comes into the landlord's hands, the improvements have disappeared altogether, and there is no benefit left.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10.

*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

I have got an Amendment to this clause which is very technical; but I believe the machinery put into this Bill has been put in by mistake. My Amendment is in line 30 to insert subsections 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. I am told that the machinery in the clause is very much too cumbrous, and too expensive to deal with the collection of a £5 debt. I do not pretend to be able to argue the question, but I am sure it was not intended by the Government to apply such an extremely complicated clause to the collection of £5. I hope the noble Lord will agree to the Amendment.

EARL CADOGAN

If my noble Friend moves the Amendment as it stands on the Paper I am prepared to agree to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.

Standing Committee negatived.

Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next.