HL Deb 22 October 1908 vol 194 cc1289-317

Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Lord Denman.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to

Clause 3:

LORD DENMAN

explained that the clause as it stood enabled local authorities to re-borrow for the purpose of paying off loans raised under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. The object of the Amendment standing in his name was to provide that where money was so borrowed under the clause it must be repaid within the period fixed for the discharge of the original loan.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 19, after the word 'section,' to insert the words, '(2) All money re-borrowed under this section shall be repaid within the period fixed for the discharge of the original loan, and every loan for re-borrowing shall, for the purpose of the ultimate discharge, be deemed to form part of the same loan as the original loan, and the obligations of the local authority with respect to the discharge of the original loan shall not be in any way effected by means of the re-borrowing.'"—(Lord Denman.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

thought it would have been a blot on the Bill if this Amendment had not been introduced, as local authorities would have been enabled to re-borrow ad infinitum without paying off their debts. The Amendment would ensure that whenever there was re-borrowing the new loan would be repaid within the time of the original loan. That was an important matter, and the Amendment had his support.

THE EARL OF MAYO

said the Return which the Irish Office had just prepared at his instigation showed that some towns in Ireland had borrowed enormous sums, and had paid very little of it off. He thought it was important that the Government should consider the indebtedness of these towns before extending further borrowing powers to them.

LORD DENMAN

replied that the Committee were at the moment on a different point altogether. The object of the present Amendment was to provide that where money was re-borrowed it must be repaid within the same time as that fixed for the original loan.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

LORD DENMAN

explained that the object of his first Amendment in this clause was to insert a reference to the provisions of Section 238 of the public Health Act, which regulated the method in which local authorities were to provide annually for the repayment of loans.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 20, after the word 'is' to insert the words 'in accordance with the provisions of subsection 4 of Section 238 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, as amended by this Act,'"—(Lord Denman.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 20, after the word 'pay' to insert the words 'or to set apart.'"—(Lord Denman).

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Is this a consequential Amendment?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (LORD FITZMAURICE)

explained that the words "or to set apart" were technical words used to describe a particular form of repayment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENMAN

said the object of his next Amendment was to provide that local authorities were to obtain the benefit of the Irish Housing Fund in the case only of loans raised after the passing of this Bill.

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 34, after the word 'authority' to insert the words '(3) In ascertaining the amount of the annual housing charge of any local authority, no account shall be taken of any sums payable or liable to be set apart by the authority in respect of moneys re-borrowed for the discharge of loans raised before the passing of this Act."—(Lord Denman.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

invited the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to state to the Committee the scheme of Amendment. It would be convenient, for instance, if the Committee could be informed what limitation it was intended should be put on towns that were to be entitled to the benefit of the Bill. He imagined that it was not intended that every town under town commissioners, no matter how small its population or size, should be given the great powers contained in this Bill. He knew of one town under commissioners which contained a population of only 1,100 or 1,200. He believed there was a subsequent Amendment dealing with that point. Perhaps the noble Lord would explain.

LORD DENMAN

suggested that the noble and learned Lord should raise the point when they came to the Amendment in question.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said it would be a great convenience in the discussion of the Bill to have an answer to that important and plain question which he had asked. The point must have been considered by the Government. Was it intended that all towns under town commissioners, without any limitation, were to be given these large discretionary powers? If the noble Lord was not prepared now to reply, he would not press for an immediate answer.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

moved to omit the words "and authorising the compulsory purchase of land for the purpose." The tendency of a great deal of legislation, both in respect to this country and to Ireland, in the course of the last few years had been towards taking power out of the hands of Parliament and concentrating it in the Local Government Board. He was not at all certain that those who had had most to do with municipal work did not feel that that tendency had been too pronounced, and that powers had been placed in the hands of the Local Government Board which might with better results have been left in the hands of Parliament. But quite certain it was that this clause went far beyond anything which had been hitherto sanctioned by Parliament with regard to Great Britain in placing it in the power of the Local Government Board to take land, and to authorise the taking of land, against the wish of the landowners, for the housing of the working classes. The English Act of 1890 required the confirmation by Parliament of any Provisional Order made under the Act, and frivolous opposition was prevented by a special subsection. In 1903 the British Act went further. It gave to the Local Government Board additional powers, but it specially reserved and limited those powers to cases where land was not to be compulsorily acquired. If compulsory acquisition were involved due notice of the draft order had to be issued, and the draft order only took effect if no opposition were offered against it. The Amendment he proposed would bring the wording of this Bill into accord with that of the Act of 1903 for England. He knew no valid reason for a distinction between Great Britain and Ireland in this matter. This work could not be so imperative that it was impossible to come to Parliament for the confirmation of a Provisional Order. If it were a question of a scheme for national defence one could imagine that expedition would be of the first order.

Amendment moved— In page 4, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words 'and authorising the compulsory purchase of land for the purpose.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)

LORD DENMAN

said he know of several precedents for the Local Government Board having the power asked for without coming to Parliament. Under Section 39 of the Act of 1890 and under the Irish Labourers Act of 1906 the Local Government Board were empowered to confirm an Order made by their Inspector after full inquiry, without going to Parliament. He could further state that since the passing of the Act of 1890 there had never been any opposition to an Order made by the Local Government Board of Ireland for purposes such as these. Surely if for seventeen years the Local Government Board had exercised their powers so efficiently it was right to infer that they would do as equally well in the future. The objection to having to come to Parliament was not only one of expense; there was also the question of delay. In order to get a Provisional Order Bill through Parliament it had to be presented at a particular period of the year—namely, in the autumn. If the Amendment of the noble Viscount were introduced a local authority, which perhaps might require compulsory powers immediately, would not be able to put their Provisional Order before Parliament until next autumn, and it would not pass into law until, he supposed, the following May or June; that was to say, they would have to wait for a year and a half at least for a thing which ought, if it were a good thing, to be done in a very few months. Moreover, there would always be a possibility of a petition against the Order, which would necessitate further delay. Therefore, the Amendment, if carried, would practically neutralise the benefit of the clause and render it almost worthless. If the noble Viscount pressed the Amendment he would have to divide the Committee upon it.

LORD ASHBOURNE

was not sure that the noble Lord was quite correct in saying there was an exact parallel in existing legislation. He did not think there was. An Order of the Local Government Board was, he knew, given great power under former Acts, but the Order was one which had boon reviewed and confirmed by the Local Government Board itself. That was here expressly excluded by the wording of the clause. The words were that the Order should take effect— Without confirmation by Parliament or by the Local Government Board. The confirmation might be a mere technical form of approval by the Local Government Board, but this check should not be omitted.

*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE)

This is a question on which I quite admit some doubt is legitimate. It is, no doubt, as a general rule, the custom, and the approved custom, that where land is taken compulsorily, power for doing so should only be given by Parliament; but my noble friend behind me pointed out, I think with considerable force, that in cases of this kind there is a very real inconvenience in the delay which may ensue. It is not only that delay ensues in cases where a petition is presented, but the possibility that a petition may be presented causes a similar delay to take place in every case. It is only during the short period in which petitions of this kind may be lodged before Parliament that any operations under the Act can take place. The noble and learned Lord has made a somewhat alternative suggestion. I gather from what he said that he would not be entirely discontented if the review of the Local Government Board were substituted for consideration by Parliament. I think that is a point well worthy of consideration, and if the noble and learned Lord will allow the matter to stand over until the Report stage we might see whether an arrangement can be arrived at on that head.

THE EARL OF MAYO

failed to see the need of such great hurry in the matter, and why the control of Parliament should be removed. This was not a Government Bill; it had been introduced by Mr. Clancy, a Nationalist M.P., and they looked upon it with some doubt on that account. In the

circumstances he could not understand the argument as to the need for such great expedition.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said that, if he remembered rightly, there was some special machinery in the Small Holdings Act of last year altering the usual procedure in regard to the compulsory taking or hiring of land. He did not say that it was altogether in pari materia, but he mentioned it as showing that the question was a complicated one, and had to be examined according to the circumstances of each country, and according to the subject-matter with which the Act dealt. He urged that as a reason for what his noble friend the Loader of the House had suggested, that the Government should be allowed to make some further examination of the question, and see whether an arrangement could not be arrived at.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

declared his intention of pressing the Amendment. The point was an important one, as a series of precedents were being built up for withdrawing from Parliament control in the matter of the compulsory acquisition of land. If the question was one of expedition he could cite several instances in London where large sums were spent on working-class houses which were now found to be unletable.

On Question, that the words "and authorising the compulsory purchase of land for the purpose" stand part of the clause.

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 28; Not-contents, 61.

CONTENTS.
Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.) Colebrooke, L. [Teller.] Herschell, L.
Courtney of Penwith, L. MacDonnell, L.
Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward). Denman, L. Marchamley, L.
Carrington, E. Eversley, L. O'Hagan, L.
Chesterfield, E. Farrer, L. Pirrie, L.
Chichester, E. Fitzmaurice, L. St. Davids, L.
Kimberley, E. Glantawe, L. Sandhurst, L.
Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.] Saye and Sele, L.
Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Swaythling, L.
Hamilton of Dalzell, L. Weardale, L.
Allendale, L. Haversham, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal). Lansdowne, M. Curns, E.
Northumberland, D. Salisbury, M. Camperdown, E.
Cawdor, E. Hood, V. Digby, L.
Clarendon, E. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Heneage, L.
Cromer, E. Hindlip, L.
Derby, E. Iveagh, V. Inchiquin, L.
Eldon, E. Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Lauderdale, E. Ardilaun, L. Macnaghten, L.
Lucan, E. Ashbourne, L. Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)
Mayo, E. Atkinson, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Onslow, E. Avebury, L. Muncaster, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Balfour, L. North, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Belhaven and Stenton, L. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Verulam, E. Belper, L. Rathmore, L.
Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Borthwick, L. Sanderson, L.
Westmeath, E. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Seaton, L.
Castlemaine, L. Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Churchill, V. [Teller]. Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Falkland, V. Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Falmouth, V. Clinton, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Goschen, V. Clonbrook, L.
Hill, V. De Mauley, L. Weymss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Consequential Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

moved the insertion of two paragraphs which he explained were consequential upon the Amendment to which the Committee had just agreed.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 14, after the word 'Board' to insert the words '(a) if land is not proposed to be taken compulsorily; or (b) if, although land is proposed to be taken compulsorily, the Local Government Board, before making an absolute order, are satisfied that notice of the draft or provisional order, as the case may be, has been served as required as respects a provisional order by subsection (5) of section (8) of the Act of 1890, and also that the draft or provisional order, as the case may be, has been published in the Dublin Gazette, and that a petition against it has not been presented to the Local Government Board by any owner of land proposed to be taken compulsorily within two months after the date of the publication and the service of notice, or, having been so presented, has been withdrawn.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

said the object of the two new subsections which he now moved was to carry out the purport of the English Act, to which the clause was now assimilated.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 24, after subsection (3) to insert the words '(4) If an order under subsection (4) of Section 8, or under Section 39 of the Act of 1890, which, if no petition were presented, would take effect without confirmation, is petitioned against, the Local Government Board may, if it thinks fit, on the application of the local authority, make any modifications in the scheme to which the order relates for the purpose of meeting the objections of the petitioner, and withdraw the order sanctioning the original scheme, substituting for it an order sanctioning the modified scheme. (5) The same procedure shall be followed as to the publication and giving notices, and the same provisions shall apply as to the presentation of petitions and the effect of the order, in the case of the order sanctioning the modified scheme, as in the case of the order sanctioning the original scheme, but no petition shall be received or have any effect except one which was presented against the original order, or one which is concerned solely with the modifications made in the scheme as sanctioned by the new order.'"—(Viscount Midleton).

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:—

*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY

moved the omission of the clause. The clause, he said, enabled local authorities to go beyond their own district in order to acquire land, and to build upon that land dwellings for the working classes. The Bill also proposed to follow the lines of the English Act of 1903, and allow municipal bodies to exceed their borrowing power limits and spend the ratepayers' money in erecting these dwellings. He thought it was enough to allow local authorities to exercise the large powers which the Bill gave them within their own districts. Surely it would not be fair to permit the Corporation of Dublin to acquire land and build houses in Rathmines or Pembroke against the wishes of the local authorities of these districts? The clause would create a large amount of friction between local authorities, and lead to the deterioration of house property.

Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 7."—(The Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery.)

LORD DENMAN

confessed to some surprise at seeing an Amendment in the name of the noble Earl restricting the powers of the Bill, especially in view of the fact that the noble Earl was well known in Ireland for the lead he had taken in facilitating the erection of workmen's dwellings in the neighbourhood of Dublin, more particularly, he believed, in the township of Blackrock. The object of the clause was to enable a local authority to establish or acquire lodging houses for the working classes outside its own area. There were many local authorities whose districts consisted of a narrow congested area, and it was impossible for them to find suitable places for workmen's cottages inside their area. Under the existing law they could not go outside, and this clause gave them permission to do so. The English Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1900 allowed a local authority whose district was congested to acquire or build houses outside, and he hoped the House would not deny the same right to Ireland.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

thought the point required a little more consideration from the Government than it had obtained. The buying of land outside for this purpose did not relieve a local authority under the existing law of the necessity of re-housing in the immediate neighbourhood any of the working classes who were removed compulsorily for improvements. Clause 9 of the Bill, under which a local authority might remit or abate rates in respect of the houses, was not in the English Act. Therefore, under this Bill, if Clauses 7 and 9 were carried, a local authority might excuse from rates houses, erected by borrowed money, in the district of another local authority.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I listened with admiration to the ingenious argument of the noble Viscount, but it seems to me there was one flaw in that argument. It may be the case—personally, I think it is the case—that the practice which has obtained of obliging local authorities to re-house in the immediate neighbourhood in cases where they have taken land for municipal improvements, is not altogether an advantage. I think in some cases it has led to the erection of buildings which had far better not have been erected, but, if so, the proper course to take is to alter or modify that law. On the other hand, I think the wiser and more modern point of view is that the further out you can get into the outskirts of large communities for the housing of your population the better, relying more on means of rapid transit and the multiplication of tramways and methods of that kind of getting people to their work—relying rather upon these than upon placing people in large blocks of buildings in the immediate neighbourhood of their work. But the flaw to which I wish to draw attention is this, that all housing schemes are not necessarily in respect of re-housing people who are displaced by municipal improvements. There may be, and are, others, and if the noble Earl's Amendment is accepted and the clause struck out of the Bill those others will be confined to buildings erected in these very crowded areas. Therefore the complaint of the crowding of people together in these already crowded areas is only enforced and made worse by the necessity of placing this other class of persons there, while if the clause is allowed to stand in the Bill these at least might be comfortably housed on the outskirts.

*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY

did not deny that it was a good thing to have workmen's dwellings outside the area of crowded towns, but objected to one local authority having power to cross its border and dump workmen's dwellings in the neighbourhood of another local authority, when that authority might wish to erect dwellings themselves. He was interested in the erection of artisans' dwellings in Pembroke, but he did not want the Corporation of Dublin possibly to take the site which the Pembroke Council had already selected, which they could do under this clause.

THE EARL OF MAYO

pointed out that the noble Earl the Leader of the House had made no reference to Clause 9, to which Lord Midleton had referred, and which dealt with the remission and abatement of rents in certain cases.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I will do that at once. The noble Viscount did not say that supposing Clause 9 were omitted, noble Lords opposite would agree to this clause. I do not say we should treat that as a compromise, but the noble Viscount never stated that his objection to this clause was contingent upon Clause 9 being in or out of the Bill.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I cannot help thinking there is a misapprehension with regard to the effect of Clause 9. As it runs, the power of remitting and abating rates is limited to rates struck in respect of premises erected after the passing of this Act within the district of the authority. That would cure, to some extent, at any rate, the blot upon which my noble friend put his finger. But the clause as it stands, if I have correctly read it, does seem to me to be a very violent clause, because it allows one local authority to invade the territory of another local authority against the will of that authority, and to involve the adjoining area in all the liabilities which must arise from the creation of new roads, new sewers, and so forth. I venture to suggest that it would perhaps be possible to meet the views of Lord Pembroke and to some extent those of His Majesty's Government by adding some such words as these— Provided always that no lodging-houses shall be established or acquired by any local authority under the provisions of this section, save with the consent of the Local Government Board and of the local authority within whose district it is proposed to establish or acquire such lodging-houses. That would give the adjoining local authority the power of resisting what I described just now as an invasion, and it would have this result, which I think would be of some importance in Ireland, that it would prevent the vindictive action of one local authority against another. There would be the double safeguard—the consent of the adjoining local authority and the consent of the Local Government Board; and I suggest that as a means of meeting the views of both sides.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said the noble Marquess had anticipated a suggestion which was going to be made by the Government. There was a certain amount of force in the criticisms which had been made, but the proposed remedy entirely striking out Clause 7 was too strong a remedy, even if the whole of the case against the clause were admitted. The Government would be perfectly ready to consider Lord Lansdowne's suggestion at a later stage.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I venture to think the simpler course would be that I should move the insertion of the words now, and if at a future stage there should be reason for improving them we could consider the matter when the time came.

*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY

withdrew his Amendment to allow of the one suggested by Lord Lansdowne being adopted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— To add to Clause 7 the words 'Provided always that no lodging-houses shall be established or acquired by any local authority under the provisions of this section, save with the consent of the Local Government Board and of the local authority within whose district it is proposed to establish or acquire such lodging-houses.'"—(Marquess of Lansdowne.)

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

THE EARL OF MAYO

moved to amend the provision that— Any such lease as aforesaid shall reserve such rent as the local authority may determine, by adding, after the word "may," the words "with the consent of the Local Government Board. The English Acts required the consent of the Local Government Board in these matters, and they desired the Local Government Board in Ireland to be, as in England, the supreme authority.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 23, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'with the consent of the Local Government Board.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)

LORD DENMAN

said the Amendment was an improvement of the Bill, and he was glad to accept it.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

LORD ASHBOURNE

moved to omit Clause 9 (Remission and abatement of rates in certain cases). He said this unprecedented proposal was that a local authority which desired to apply this Bill might remit for ten years the rates payable in respect of these working-class dwellings to be erected in the future. He ventured to say that the oldest and most experienced member of their Lordships' House could not recall any precedent for such a clause. It was novel and startling. The clause also provided that— if at any time any such premises are let to or occupied by other persons than such as aforesaid [persons of the working classes], or at rents not sanctioned as aforesaid, then in every such case any rates so remitted or, as the case may be, the balance of any rates so abated as aforesaid, shall be and become a charge upon the owner's interest in such premises. Yet the owner might have had no voice as to the persons who should occupy the premises. He mentioned this in order to call attention to the utterly indefensible way in which the clause was drawn. There was no application to an independent tribunal; the decision as to whether the buildings had been occupied by people who did not come within the definition of working classes would rest with the local authority. He put his opposition to the clause on the broad ground that it would be unwise and unjust in the last degree to give the local authority the power to remit rates in advance on certain property regardless of the rights of other ratepayers.

Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 9."—(Lord Ashbourne.)

LORD DENMAN

thought that a good many provisions that had found a place in Irish Acts of Parliament might have been described as novel and startling. The object of the clause was to offer an inducement to private owners to undertake the erection of what might be un-remunerative dwellings. He submitted that ample safeguards against the abuse of the powers conferred by the clause were provided. It applied only to dwellings erected after the passing of the Act. The rent of the dwellings must be sanctioned by the local authority, who in their turn were required to get the consent of the Local Government Board. In the Second Reading debate, Lord Mayo stated that the Local Government Board was one of the best administered departments in Ireland. Surely they could be trusted to see that the provisions of this clause were not abused or taken undue advantage of. However, if the noble and learned Lord persisted in his objection to the clause, the Government did not propose to put the House to the trouble of a division, although they could not assent to the Amendment.

LORD ATKINSON

said the effect of the clause was this, that the local authority was to raise money from other portions of the community in order to give a grant in aid of the rents of the working classes. That was a most extraordinary and far-reaching principle. The consent of the Local Government Board had to be obtained to the remission of rates, but the local authority could, at any time it pleased, after the remission had gone on for a certain period, come to the conclusion that the houses had been let to persons other than members of the working class, of which class there was no definition, and, thereupon, all the rates purported to be remitted could be recovered from the owner of the property, and the local authority itself was to decide whether or not the houses had been occupied by persons not belonging to the working-classes. He would like to know whether any precedent for that could be found, not only in Irish legislation, but in the legislation of any other civilised country. The owner might have had no power to regulate or determine who were to occupy the houses, which might be in the tenancy of some lessee. He contended that the clause was unjust in every line.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I gathered from the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill that His Majesty's Government will not press this clause if we insist upon its omission. I am bound to say, after listening to the discussion which has taken place, that I hope my noble and learned friend will press his Amendment. The clause seems to me to be a most dangerous one. It comes to this, that immunity from rates is to be given to certain premises which are to be provided for the housing of the working classes. Of course, it follows that the rates which are not paid upon those premises will have to be paid by the other ratepayers. That is an initial injustice. Look how the whole of this arrangement lends itself to jobbery—and we all know—let us be frank about it—that in these Irish municipalities there is a great deal of jobbery. This proposal facilitates jobbery of a most dangerous kind. We are told: "Oh there is a safeguard. The support of the Local Government Board is indispensable before this immunity from rates can be afforded." I venture to doubt whether this is any safeguard at all. The Local Government Board will have to administer the clause as they find it. The clause itself is radically unsound, and whether the Local Government Board allow it to be applied in all cases or only in a few, I submit that its application is essentially unjust. There is one effect which the introduction of this proposed system cannot fail to have. It must act as a great discouragement to private enterprise in the provision of better accommodation for the working classes. How can you expect anyone to put up on an economic basis improved cottages for housing the working classes if he is liable to find other houses erected by the local authority side by side with his, and let at rents artifically reduced under this clause? I have not lately had an opportunity of referring to the document, but some of your Lordships may carry in your minds the famous Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law in 1832. I believe I am right in saying that in that Report the strongest possible condemnation is to be found of all proposals to give immunity from rates to certain premises merely because they were intended for the accommodation of the working classes. All sound economic authorities have set their face against proposals of this kind. Therefore, if my noble and learned friend presses for the deletion of this clause I shall support him.

Clause 10:

*LORD CLONBROCK

moved to omit the clause with a view to substituting other words which would assimilate the law to that in England. In England, after a closing order has been obtained, there must be continued default, a further summons by the local authority, and adjudication thereon by the justices, before a demolition order can be made. He failed to see any reason why local authorities in Ireland should be given more drastic powers in regard to closing and demolition orders than were given to local authorities in England.

Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 10 and to insert as a new clause, '10. (1) If, in the opinion of the local authority, any dwelling house is not reasonably capable of being made fit for human habitation, or is in such a state that the occupation thereof should be immediately discontinued it shall not be necessary for them, before obtaining a closing order, to serve a notice on the owner or occupier of the premises to abate the nuisance, and a justice may issue a summons for a closing order, and a closing order may be granted, although such a notice has not been served. (2) The Local Government Board may by order prescribe forms in substitution for those in the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1890, and Section 32 of that Act shall have effect as if the forms so prescribed were referred to therein in lieu of the forms in that Schedule.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)

LORD FITZMAURICE

explained that the object was to get rid of delay that sometimes occurred in clearing away condemned houses. He felt that they were on common ground in this matter, and if the noble Lord would allow the Irish Office time to consider his Amendment and their own clause he thought that by the time the Report stage was reached they would in all probability have arrived at some agreement.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said the object they all had in view was to make the law coherent and intelligible. He hoped that if the matter were allowed to stand over the Government would themselves undertake to substitute an improved clause.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I think the noble and learned Lord's request is in one respect not entirely a reasonable one, because my noble friend could hardly offer in general terms to put forward a new clause without having clearly in his mind, after consideration, what the wording and effect of that new clause would be. There is a distinct difference in operation between the clause as it stands on the Paper and the clause as suggested by the noble Lord opposite. If is quite possible—I think it is, indeed, probable—that some half-way house may be found between the two. We think that the mere power to close, which the noble Lord suggests, is probably not quite enough, and that there ought to be some, further power. But I can promise that the Irish Office will take the whole clause into consideration, and will do their best to suggest some modification of it in order that it may be generally accepted by noble Lords on both sides of the House.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said his point would be met if an Amendment of some kind were put down by the Government draughtsman before the next stage, so that the House would be seized of the question.

*LORD CLONBROCK

explained that he did not at all wish to delay the demolition of tumble-down and condemned houses. All he wished to do was to assimilate the law in the two countries. He, therefore, gladly accepted the suggestion of the noble Earl the Leader of the House.

LORD FITZMAURICE

explained that the essence of the clause as it stood in the Bill was that the Closing Order and the Demolition Order could be practically coincident. The procedure was thereby made far more rapid, and he hoped that noble Lords opposite would see, on reflection, that that was a very desirable thing. But the matter was one on which there ought to be some, exchange of views between noble Lords opposite and his noble friend in charge of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MAYO

said this clause provided that Section 72 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as amended by the Second Schedule to the Act of 1890, should have effect as if "one hundred pounds" were substituted therein for "twenty pounds." He moved to leave out "one hundred" and to insert "forty." He said that if the figure remained at £100 it would be quite possible that a succession of purchases by agreement might gradually dispose of settled property by transferring the purchase money to the limited owner.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 33, to leave out the words 'one hundred' and to insert the word 'forty."'—(The Earl of Mayo.)

LORD DENMAN

explained that the object of the clause was to enable local authorities to pay to the apparent owner purchase money or compensation up to the value of £100 instead of paying it into Court, thus avoiding the expense and delay of Chancery proceedings. The noble Earl desired to limit the amount of this sum to £40. There was a similar provision in the Labourers Act of 1906, the sum named in that Act being £60. He thought it could hardly be contended that the provision of workmen's dwellings in urban districts was not even more necessary than in rural areas. He therefore hoped their Lordships would consent to the larger sum of £100 remaining in the Bill.

LORD ATKINSON

said it was quite right that where only a small plot of ground was sold, and the purchase money was a small sum, the expense of having to pay it into Court should not be incurred. But the danger that Lord Mayo wished to guard against was that a limited owner, by selling a number of plots one after another, might succeed in receiving a very considerable sum in the aggregate, thus procuring for his own purposes what really represented a portion of the inheritance of which he was only the life owner. He thought the mischief could be guarded against by introducing the words "not to exceed in the aggregate a sum of £500," or some words to that effect.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I am impressed by the force of what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, and it seems to me there may be need for inserting some safeguard of the kind he desires. It would certainly not be reasonable that a limited owner who had an estate of building land should be able to sell piecemeal and obtain the whole value for himself. At the same time, limiting the amount of each particular sale, as the noble Earl proposes, would not remove the difficulty, as the same process might be carried on on a more limited scale. If the noble Lord will leave the matter over till the Report stage we will consider the point in the meantime.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13:

*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY

said this clause was entirely without precedent. The first subsection provided that— Any body corporate may, notwithstanding any restriction arising by statute or otherwise, if they think fit, appropriate any land held by them for any purpose for the provision by them of dwellings available for the working-classes, or transfer any land so held by them to any other person for the purpose of that provision, either by way of free grant or for such consideration and on such terms as they in their discretion think fit. He proposed to strike out the word "notwithstanding," and to insert "subject to." Under the clause as it stood it would be very easy for a body of crank philanthropists, with the assistance of representatives of the working classes on the council, to make free gifts of property held on charitable and other trusts to form free sites for artisans' dwellings. This was an absolutely new proposal in legislation, and he proposed that these, enormous powers should not be granted without a certain amount of restriction.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 35, to leave out the word 'notwithstanding' and to insert the words 'subject to.'"—(The Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery.)

LORD DENMAN

regretted that in this particular instance he was unable to quote any precedent for the clause as it stood: but, at the same, time, he thought it was an important and necessary clause and one which should remain in the Bill. It was, as drawn, a wide clause; but Amendments stood on the Paper in his own name and that of Lord Meath, which the Government would accept, which would considerably restrict its operation. He was informed that the effect of the Amendment would inevitably be that the whole clause would be useless, and the noble Earl might just as well move its omission. The object of the clause—a perfectly reasonable one—was to remove restrictions and enable bodies corporate to divert land held by them from some particular purpose to that of the erection of dwellings available for the working classes. There would be considerable safeguards and restrictions.

*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY

asked what the safeguards were.

LORD DENMAN

referred the noble Earl to the Amendments standing in his (Lord Denman's) name on the Paper. In this case, again, the local authority would be subject to the control of the Local Government Board.

LORD ASHBOURNE

could not see that the acceptance of the Amendment would necessarily kill the clause.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

Will the noble and learned Lord explain what is to prevent a corporation or any other body taking land which is subject to no restrictions either by statute or otherwise?

LORD ASHBOURNE

I do not know.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

In that case what would be the use of the clause?

*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY

intimated his willingness to agree to the deletion of the words "or otherwise."

LORD ATKINSON

said it would be intolerable that local authorities should take property held on trust created by statute or deed for one purpose and devote it to an entirely different purpose.

*THE LORD CHAIRMAN

explained what he thought was the real object of the clause. When a local authority applied to Parliament to be enabled to acquire land for a particular purpose, and subsequently found that they did not require it for that purpose, they could not, without further powers, utilise it in any other way. He gathered that the real intention of the clause was that where an authority had acquired land for one purpose by statute they should have power to use it, if they desired to do so, for the erection of workmen's dwellings. He agreed that there should be a provision that local authorities should not take property held on trust.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I think we are all anxious that a clause of this kind should be arrived at by general agreement, because it clearly is important that we should safeguard land which ought not to be used for this purpose. What I should like to put to noble Lords opposite is this. Reading in the Amendment of the noble Earl on the cross benches, Lord Meath, which we have announced our intention to accept, namely— Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorise the appropriation or utilisation for the purposes of the Act of any common or commonable land, or any recreation ground, village green, or other open space dedicated to the use of the public, or any disused burial ground, or any land held on trusts which prohibit building thereon— are there any other cases in which harm could be done to the public interests by the utilisation for working class dwellings of land in the possession of a municipality? Are there any lands held in trust by municipalities, other than those covered by Lord Meath's Amendment, which it would be contrary to the public interest to use for workmen's dwellings?

LORD ATKINSON

said there were in Ireland instances of ground held for the purpose of hospitals; this would be alienable.

LORD FITZMAURICE

suggested that a sufficient safeguard was offered by the second subsection, providing that the consent of the Local Government Board should be necessary. Could it possibly be imagined that the Local Government Board of Ireland would rashly give its consent to the improper a ienation of land such as had been referred to? The clause was primarily intended to deal with such cases as had been described by the Lord Chairman. The Local Government Board could be relied upon to act in the protection of the public, and with the addition of the Amendment which Lord Meath would subsequently move there could be no serious risk of harm being done.

THE EARL OF MEATH

thought the Local Government Board would often be placed in an awkward position in this matter. Very rightly the Local Government Board had been continually urging municipal authorities to expend money in housing working classes who were now improperly housed, and if a municipal authority had a site in their possession upon which they might build workmen's houses without much expense the Local Government Board would be placed in a very awkward position if they refused their consent. He would illustrate what he meant by an example. He owned property in the city of Dublin which was almost entirely covered by working-class dwellings many of them erected in recent years. He had purposely reserved, at pecuniary loss to himself, some small open spaces adjoining for the purpose of playgrounds, and he had often been asked why he did not hand them over to the corporation of Dublin. He was thankful now that he had not done so, because with such a clause as this the result would be that his heirs would lose all the benefit from building upon that land and the people would lose the open space.

*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY

did not like parting with his Amendment, but would do so subject to words covering his point being added to Lord Meath's new subsection. He suggested that the words "which prohibit building thereon" should be deleted, and the words "for public or charitable purposes" substituted. That would meet a great deal of his objection to the clause as it stood.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

It is rather difficult off-hand to give a decided and definite answer, but we would certainly agree to the insertion of those words now, subject to the matter being considered before the next stage.

*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY

I understand the Government will accept Lord Meath's Amendment altered as I have suggested?

*THE EARL OF CREWE

Yes, provisionally.

THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY

thereupon withdrew his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DENMAN

explained that the object of his next Amendment, which came before Lord Meath's, was to restrict the operation of the clause. He did not suppose, therefore, that it would be objected to.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 39, to leave out the word 'or' and to insert the words 'and where the body corporate is a local authority may let out any such land on lease as if the land had been acquired under and for the purposes of Part III. of the Act of 1890, and where the body corporate is not a local authority may."—(Lord Denman.)

THE EARL OF MEATH

then moved to insert in the clause his proposed new subsection. He was very pleased to know that His Majesty's Government intended to accept it, and therefore it would be unnecessary to detain the Committee by proving its necessity. He might say, however, that he was very much astonished that the Bill should be permitted to have gone so far without notice having been taken of this omission. He could only think that it must have been hurried through the other House, because for the past twenty-seven years at least the whole purport of our legislation with regard to open spaces had been to protect them. From the year 1881, when the Metropolitan Open Spaces Act passed for London, they went on to the year 1884 when disused burial grounds were protected, to 1887 when Ireland was included, and to 1890 when trustees were distinctly given power to perpetuate the use of open spaces. Then in 1899, when the Government of London was reconstituted, special care was taken in that statute to prevent the alienation of open spaces, and in 1906 the local authorities were especially told that they must look upon the open spaces as being held by them in trust— with a view to the enjoyment thereof by the public as open spaces and for no other purpose. In the present Bill as it stood it was proposed to reverse all this legislation, but he was glad to know that His Majesty's Government were prepared to accept his Amendment. He could not help thinking, however, that the words which Lord Pembroke proposed to insert would rather weaken the subsection.

Amendment moved— In page 7, line 11, after subsection (3) to insert the following new subsection:—'(4) Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorise the appropriation or utilisation for the purposes of the Act of any common or commonable land, or any recreation ground, village green, or other open space dedicated to the use of the public, or any disused burial ground or any land held on trusts which prohibit building thereon.'"—(The Earl of Meath.)

*THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY

said it was just possible that the noble Earl might be right in saying that his proposed addition would weaken the Amendment. He therefore proposed to let the subsection stand as it was on the Paper, adding at the end the words "or held for public or charitable purposes."

THE EARL OF MEATH

accepted this addition.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

appealed to the Government as to the desirability of putting in some limitation to this clause, which provided that— Any town commissioners, within the meaning of section ninety-nine of the Act of 1890, may, if they think fit, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, adopt Part II. of the Act of 1890 in like manner as they may adopt Part III. of that Act, and any references in section ninety-nine or in section one hundred of the Act of 1890 to Part III. of that Act shall, for the purposes of this section, be construed as references to Part II. of that Act. This was a great power to place in the hands of town commissioners, and he suggested that it should be limited to towns whose population at the last census was not less than 2,000. Even with this limitation, three-quarters of the urban districts of Ireland would be included in the Bill.

LORD DENMAN

suggested that the noble Viscount should place an Amendment dealing with this point on the Paper for the Report stage.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 16 and 17 agreed so.

Clause 18:

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

urged that, in order to avoid difficulty and discussion, there should be a definition of the expression "working classes." He hardly thought the Government would object to putting in the definition which found a place in the Act of 1903. The same definition was also to be found in two other Acts.

Amendment moved— In page 8, line 17, after '1878' to insert the words 'The expression "working classes" shall mean mechanics, artisans, labourers, and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers, persona not working for wages but working at some trade or handicraft without employing others except members of their own family and persons other than domestic servants, whose income in any case does not exceed an average of thirty shillings a week, and the families of any of such persons who may be residing with them.'"—(Viscount Midleton).

LORD DENMAN

did not think there was any real need for a definition. He was informed that there was no definition of any kind in the Irish Act of 1890. The Amendment would exclude any working men who did not happen to come within the definition; it was possible that a sailor, for instance, might not come within the limits of the noble Viscount's definition. If, however, it was thought desirable that there should be a definition, he suggested that the words "the expression 'working classes' shall mean" should be altered to "the expression 'working classes' shall include." Other classes of working men would not then be excluded.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

said that, not being a lawyer, he was uncertain as to the exact legal interpretation of the word "include." So far as he was aware, no difficulty whatever had arisen under the Act of 1903, which contained the word "mean" and the same designation.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I have not the Act here, but I understand that the word in the Act of 1903 is "include."

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

As my noble friend relies on the English Act and as there seems to be some doubt on this matter, I think the point might be allowed to stand over. It is clear to my mind that the two words "mean" and "include" signify two distinct things, and we should make up our minds as to what we intend before agreeing to either.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 211.)

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.