LORDS AMENDMENT. (Hansard, 24 July 1919)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
In regard to these Amendments I think it has been felt that there was a good deal to be said for the view taken by the Commons, but it was held by the noble Marquess that their apprehensions might be safeguarded while still carrying out his own purpose. I gather that there has been a discussion, and that the result of that discussion is the Motion which I now make and which I trust will not be unacceptable to the Commons.

LORD SHEFFIELD
It is difficult to follow the Amendment as read, but, as I picked it up, the obligation to put the house in repair, no matter what it may cost, is to be enforced unless it is possible to show that it is not capable without reconstruction of being rendered fit for human habitation. There are many houses which, of course, if you spend enough money upon them you can put into repair. There are houses which the owner has kept standing because of the needs which have arisen during the war, though he would gladly have pulled them down. They are houses which no prudent owner would put into repair. Therefore I think it should be "where a reasonable owner can properly put them into repair." Otherwise you would be putting a very great obligation upon the owners.

§ LORD BLEDISLOE
As I was responsible for the Amendments and for the words which are now proposed to be inserted, I think I should say that in my opinion the House of Commons did not realise the exact point upon which we want to insist. In the case of ordinary repairs their objection would be unanswerable. If an owner can by ordinary repairs put a house in a state of repair fit for human habitation, it is only right that he should do so, but in the case of a good many old, picturesque houses the moment you touch them they, like a house of cards, collapse, and to put such houses into a habitable state would involve reconstruction. It would be obviously unfair, particularly to small owners—and it should be realised that two-thirds of these houses belong not to rich men but to very poor persons. It would cost four to five times the capital value of the house. Therefore this Amendment is proposed—namely, that where reconstruction is involved, as distinct from repairs, the owner is to be allowed to close the house rather than re-erect it. There are cases which have been already settled on this point, and I think there is little doubt that it would be possible to distinguish between one type of work and another. If, however, there is any doubt we ask that the Local Government Board shall decide.

§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON
I only want to say that I think the minimum of protection has been given by this Amendment, and I ask the noble and learned Lord to realise that when the measure with regard to Ireland is read a second time it will be impossible for us to rest content with such a minimum of protection. Some appeal on the facts it will be absolutely necessary for us to press for.

§ EARL STANHOPE
It is very difficult for anybody to construe what the Amendment really means, and I suggest that if possible in another place the Amendment should be altered so that it should say that where the repairs would exceed say five times the annual rent the owner should be entitled to close the house. I think you require some definite language in order to decide what is impossible repair.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am very unwilling that further words should be added here, by way of explanation, but the suggestion made shall be considered, and I will ask the draftsman to do so.