HL Deb 24 July 1919 vol 35 cc1051-8

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

(who was indistinctly heard): My Lords, in asking the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, those of your Lordships who are specially interested in Irish affairs will desire that I should give some explanation, which I fear must in the nature of the case be a little tedious, of the special points on which this Bill differs from the English Bill. I have been asked by more than one Irish Peer to make one or two points plain, and I will do it with as much brevity as the circumstances admit of. The clauses of this Bill are virtually copies of the clauses in the English Housing and Town Planning Bill, with such drafting modifications as are necessary in order to deal with the different conditions which prevail in the two countries. That I May make it plain how close is the resemblance between the Bill which has already met with your Lordships' approval and the present Bill, I may say that the English Bill as it left Your Lordships' House contained forty-seven clauses, and the Irish Bill contains thirty-four. Of the thirty-four Irish clauses, twenty-nine actually correspond to the clauses which have been already the subject of debate, and in most cases of approval, in this House.

The point on which it is desirable to say a word or two is as to the differences which affect those five clauses. The principal Act of 1890 applied to Ireland as well as to England, but later Acts—the Acts of 1900, 1903, 1909—did not apply to Ireland, although some of their clauses were extended to Ireland by the Housing of the. Working Classes (Ireland) Act, 1908, and power is taken under Clause 28 of this Bill to extend certain provisions of the Acts of 1903 and 1909 to Ireland ht Order of the Lord Lieutenant in Council—a provision which in practice ought to prove a useful one.

One observation must be made, and that is that the Trish Housing Code is largely an urban code. The local authorities for the purposes of Part 3 of the Act in Ireland are urban district councils, and the commissioners in rural districts. There are twenty-eight small towns or villages with populations varying from 5,000 to 1,000, and for the purposes of that Act they are technically defined as towns. The rural district council is a local authority for the purposes of Part 2 of the Act of 1890, but the county councils are not local authorities under the Irish code. These differences have led to some practical results which require a word. The explanation of them is that rural housing in Ireland has been dealt with separately by a series of Acts called the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, under which the rural district councils are empowered to provide cottages and plots of ground, not only for agricultural labourers proper but for all persons working for hire whose wages do not exceed 2s. 6d. a day. Liberal assistance is given to a rural district council under these Acts, by means of free grants and loans at low rates. Under that what is actually a revolution in rural housing has been brought about. No fewer than 50,000 houses, with suitable plots, have been provided under the terms of those Acts. The conditions, indeed, were pre-war but it is encouraging to know that under the greatly more favourable conditions such solid progress was achieved.

But when you come to the present conditions in this respect you find a gap between the labourers' code and the housing code. The explanation is that the class of labourers in the rural districts which earns wages above 2s. 6d. a day cannot, under the terms of the Labourers' Acts or the Housing Acts, be dealt with, and the Chief Secretary some time ago publicly promised to introduce a Bill to bridge over that gap. I ought to make it clear that certain clauses of this Bill apply to rural as well as to urban districts.

Those of your Lordships who come from Ireland are well aware that the urban housing problem in Ireland is a very serious one indeed. The conditions in Dublin to-day have been frequently described in such terms as it would be impossible to exaggerate, and it may be in the memory-of some that a special Committee of the Irish Convention estimated that the number of new working-class houses urgently required was not fewer than 67,000. That figure may be an over-estimate or not, but that the state of affairs is extremely grave is a matter of common knowledge.

I ought, I think, to add that in the House of Commons this Bill was welcomed by Irish Members of all Parties—a circumstance so singular that it justly attracted an unusual degree of attention. I am unaware that it was criticised in any quarter. There was little or no controversy as to any of the provisions, and the only serious adverse criticism was directed against the details of the scheme, for the subsidising of the local authority. These details did not appear in the Bill, but the scheme was stated by the Chief Secretary on the Second Reacting. The form of it was that, for every £1 of rent which was charged And collected for the houses built the Government was to contribute £1within the margin of loss, and it is no exaggeration to say that almost the whole of the time in the Committee of the House of Commons was occupied with debates on this proposal, and Irish Members of both Parties pressed for more liberal terms. The Chief Secretary proved unable to resist this demand in its entirety, but he compromised the matter and induced the Treasury to extend the terms and to agree that for every £1 rent collected by the local authority the State should provide 25s., rising in exceptional cases to 27s. 6d.

One of the noble Lords interested in this matter has asked me to make these figures clear. It really amounts to this, that for every £8 rent collected the State has undertaken if this Bill meets with the approval of this House, to provide a subsidy of £10, rising to £11 in very exceptional cases. These terms, though not received with particular gratitude, nevertheless were ultimately accepted, and the obvious merit of this scheme is that it will ensure automatically, or ought to ensure, some reasonable degree of economy on the part of the local authority.

There is only one other point. Financial matters played a conspicuous part in the debates, and they arose in the following way. Where the rateable value of an area exceeds £200,000 it was pointed out that it would be necessary for the local authority to borrow in the open market, instead of obtaining the loans from the Board of Works. It will be readily imagined that the areas where the rateable value exceeds £200,000 are not, even in these days of Irish material prosperity, to be found everywhere; in fact, the only places in Ireland whose rateable value exceeds that amount are Dublin and Belfast. And accordingly the representatives of those towns all contended that it would be impossible for them to obtain loans in the open market.

It was pointed out that, after all, the rule in question was to be applied throughout the United Kingdom, that its application had not been the subject of serious criticism in the debates on the English Bill, and there was no very apparent reason why Belfast and Dublin should be treated in a different way. There was considerable discussion upon that point, and it was left with an assurance from the representative of the Government that he would have a further consultation with the Treasury, and see whether an amendment was still possible. There are a number of points which I have every reason to suppose that some of your Lordships who are specially aware of the circumstances in Ireland would desire to bring forward. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF MAYO

My Lords, I do not think anybody will complain about the principle which is contained in this Bill. It is a somewhat complicated measure, and there is a good deal of legislation by reference in the Bill. Perhaps that cannot be avoided, but it is rather difficult to interpret the Bill and have its provisions carried out when you are referred here and there and everywhere to other Bills. I have had some of the points, especially with regard to Clause 1, explained to me.

What the Lord Chancellor said about the slums in Dublin is quite correct. The working classes and the poor in that town live in the most wretched way. They live in houses which were built for gentlefolk in the eighteenth century. They are totally unsuitable, and the sanitary arrangements are practically nil. To speak quite frankly, I should like to say that I would much rather that the Government had brought in a Bill dealing with Dublin first, because the slums of Dublin are a disgrace to the United Kingdom. And when we consider that the rates in Dublin are 16s. 11½d. in the£ it is surely time that the Government should come forward and see that the housing of the poor in that town is carried out. This Bill does something for that, and I am very much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for having explained the financial provisions of the Bill. I believe I am right in saying that when an important member of the Government—and a member of the Cabinet, and the Lord Chancellor—says that those financial schemes will be carried out, they will be carried out. I am fortified in that by Clause 5, which says— … the Board shall, if the scheme is carried out within such period after the passing of this Act, as may be specified by the Board, with the consent of the Treasury, pay, or undertake to pay … The word "shall" being put in the Bill, makes it clear to me that we shall have those financial arrangements carried out.

I should like to say something about the Bill. It is headed "As Amended by Standing Committee D." It gives, I must say, enormous powers to local authorities in an urban district; in fact, in a town they can do what they like and take what they like. When I say that, I must draw your attention to the fact that in the Labourers Acts, the Congested District Boards Acts, and other Acts, demesnes and home farms have been protected. It has been the policy of the English Government to protect the demesnes and home farms, but in this Bill that is not done. It is curious to note that in Committee D the Chief Secretary brought forward a new clause dealing with this matter. There was bitter opposition to it, though I do not know why, and it was dropped. He then said that he would bring in a Regulation. But what we who live in Ireland feel is that there may be great difficulties put in the way of owners of demesnes in protecting their demesnes. Suppose I had a demesne and a home farm close to a town and they said to me, "We want to build a number of houses. We think you are a disagreeable sort of person—(that happens very often in Ireland)—so we choose to put these houses and streets on your demesne and home farm." I think that is the most unreasonable thing that could occur under this Bill. I feel very strongly about this because, as I have said, it has been the policy of the Government always to protect the demesnes and home farms. We do not want to be so bullied that we shall have to leave the country. It is possible to find other land near towns, and it is hardly fair that the Government should go back on their policy with regard to or homes, our home farms, and our demesnes.

I desire to refer to Clause 22. That clause says— …If the owner of any house suitable for occupation by persons of the working classes fails to make and keep such house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation then, without prejudice to any other powers, the local authority may serve a notice upon the owner of such house requiring him within a reasonable time." etc. The local authority can practically make you do anything—pull down the house, or alter it in every possible way; and that clause could be used most oppressively. In England that sort of thing is not done, but I assure you that in Ireland that kind of oppression can be and is carried out. It will be necessary for us to move an Amendment on this clause in order to safeguard the interests of those owners of houses who are likely to be oppressively dealt with under this Clause. I feel that the Bill is necessary, and if the Government will listen to the Amendments that we shall propose, which will not be unreasonable Amendments—the chief of them I may frankly say is the one with regards to demesnes and home farms—I do not intend to offer any opposition whatever to the passing of the Bill. But, as I said before, Dublin is a place that must be dealt with by the Government. It is a town which is a disgrace, and if the Government do not see that it is properly dealt with will be a very serious matter. The people there live in a filthy state, and people who are badly housed are the prey of every sort of agitator, and of every kind of wickedness you can imagine connected with agitation. The other towns are not so bad, though they might be better. With these few words, and the notice I have given that certain Amendments will be moved, I have pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

My Lords, I wish to trouble the House as briefly as possible on this Bill, the more so as I personally welcome any effort which will give the working-classes in Ireland better housing than they have had up to the present. But while I am in the fullest sympathy with the object of the Bill, I think the lines of the English Bill have been followed much too closely in regard to an Irish measure. My noble friend who has just sat down has pointed out how badly the powers which have been in the hands of some of the biggest municipal authorities have been used in the past. No one who knows the state of Dublin can fail to realise that something has been lacking in the conduct of this business on the part of one of the most untrammelled municipal authorities in the world. Apart from that, however, the weak point of the measure—on which my noble friend has also put his finger—is that it has been assumed that some of the authorities in Ireland can be trusted to carry out these schemes which have not been particularly well carried out by some of the urban authorities. I challenge that conclusion. I am certain that, unless you put into the Bill considerable safeguards which are not there at present, you will have great corruption and a failure to carry out the objects which Parliament has in view.

I would call attention to one particular clause which deals with insanitary houses. It is there actually contemplated that the local authority—which as we all know in some of these smaller towns has had to have work taken out of its hands by the Local Government Board—can go to a landlord and say, "Some of your houses are insanitary," and they can give a notice, provided it is not less than three weeks, to put them right, and within that period, without appeal it is understood, they may take a month or two months and order the landlord to put a number of houses immediately into complete repair from top to bottom. Everybody knows that there is not at present either the staff or the material available. None the less, again without appeal, the local authority can proceed to put in their own men to do the work at whatever price they like and to charge it to the landlord.

I am sure that those who framed the Bill realise that this is not going to be a small question, because it is contemplated in the same clause that the local authority may have to give the landlord thirty years in which to pay the enormous sums they are going to spend on his property. Everybody must see that a provision of that kind is quite unfit to be put into the hands of some of these small rural authorities. There is no man alive who desires to see in-sanitary houses dealt with more severely than I do; but at the same time, to put into the hands of men who have failed in a great many instances in their most obvious duties such extreme powers, in a country where unfortunately political reasons more than any other govern appointments to those local bodies, is a thing I do not think your Lordships should do.

There are two further points which I should like to mention. My noble friend has pointed out that for the first time in an Irish Act protection has not been afforded to the demesne or farm or home park of a private inhabitant. It is absolutely necessary that you should have a different provision in Ireland from that which you have in Great Britain, when you consider than ninety-nine-hundredths of the land is in the hands of tenants who have got a tenant-right which is scarcely ever invaded by the local authorities. If you are going to levy your tolls of land for houses on such a very small section of the community you must have some safeguard that the power is fairly used. Beyond that we have had the rather elaborate system of finance described by the noble and learned Lord, on which I should like to say a few words and to ask for some explanation when we get into Committee. Not to trouble your Lordships further, what I would like to ask is that the noble Lord should give us some days, at all events, before putting the Bill down for Committee. We must introduce to the notice of the House certain Amendments, and I trust the noble Lord will not put the Bill down for Committee before say Wednesday or Thursday next.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I understood that an arrangement had been made with regard to the Committee stage. I gathered that it was to be put down for Thursday.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.