HL Deb 31 July 1919 vol 36 cc133-60

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

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

On Question, Motion agreed to

House in Committee accordingly

[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

THE EARL OF MAYO

Lord Oranmore and Browne will be here in a moment I beg formally, on his behalf, to move at the end of subsection (2), to insert "or for giving effect to any provisions of this Act." I think the words speak for themselves and do not require any explanation.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 6, after ("scheme") insert ("or for giving effect to any of the provisions of this Act").—(The Earl of Mayo.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There seems to be no objection to this Amendment, but it would require to be modified without altering its sense. If the noble Lord will move it in the form after "this" insert "part of this" it would carry out his purpose and would be unobjectionable.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

I accept that.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next is only a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 14, after ("scheme") insert ("or part thereof").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 26, after ("and") insert ("the payment of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:

Amendment moved— Page 5, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("the scheme requires that provision shall be made") and insert ("in the opinion of the Local Government Board it is necessary that provision should be made by the scheme").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 26, after ("land") insert ("or such part thereof as is specified in the notice").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 29, after ("like") insert ("compensation for the land of which possession is taken and") and after ("awarded") insert ("as would have been payable if those enactments had been complied with").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 22, after ("purchase") insert ("by") and after ("lease") insert ("to them").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF MAYO had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following new clause— .No land which is or forms part of a home, farm, park, garden or pleasure ground or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house shall be included in any petition for an order authorising the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of Part III of the Act of 1890, if sites not less suitable can be obtained on other land.

The noble Earl said: This clause is really to enable those who live in their homes in Ireland to enjoy, without undue interference from the local authorities in building houses, the amenities of those homes. The words "park, garden or pleasure ground or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling house" are words taken from the Act of 1905, Cap. 44, Clause 45, and they come in at the end of the clause. The only word that is added to them is the word "home farm." The home farm means, of course, a livelihood to the person who lives on the farm and it would be a very serious matter if houses were placed on a home farm, because that might interfere with the agriculture of the farm if the Local Government Board exercised inordinate powers. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept this new clause.

I want to say something with regard to the drafting of the clause. As it appears on the Paper there is a comma after the word "home" and that makes it read differently from the way in which it should read. There ought to be no comma after the word "home." The two words "home farm" ought to read practically as one word. It is a term well understood in Ireland. At the end of the clause I suggest to the Lord Chancellor that, instead of the words "if sites not less suitable can be obtained on other land," there should be placed the words "if suitable sites can be obtained on other land." I think that would make the clause read better. However, there is nothing much in that, but it is important that the words "home farm" should be taken as one. I do not think there is anything more to say beyond this—that that end of the clause is a saving matter. We do not seek to exclude the local authorities from any parts of the park or home farm that are mentioned if suitable sites cannot be obtained on other land. If they cannot be obtained they must step in and take the land, but we wish to be protected to a certain extent.

Amendment moved—

Insert the following new clause: .No land which is or forms part of a home farm, park, garden or pleasure ground or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house shall be included in any petition for an order authorising the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of Part III of the Act of 1890, if suitable sites can be obtained on other land."—(The Earl of Mayo.)

LORD SHANDON

I would ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment and I shall explain why. The Act of 1890 has been in operation since that year in Ireland. Section 57 of that Act which, of course, will be incorporated in the present Act, provides that any land which forms part of any park, garden, pleasure ground, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling-house is excluded. The same section applies to England. It has been in operation in England and has been found sufficient from 1890 to the present time. Accordingly, unless, by some curious construction of the Statute, that section is not carried over into the present Bill, there does not seem any necessity for the alteration. If there be any question as to that, then the remedy is to incorporate Section 57 of the Act of 1890 expressly, but that would also be necessary in the case of the English Act and no one has raised the question. So that, the defect, if defect there be, exists in both Acts.

The Amendment proposed differs in terms from the terms of the existing Statute. It introduces a word which in Ireland has a somewhat undefined meaning. "Home farm" there is not exactly the same as "home farm" in England. Very frequently it is almost the same as a small domain, but, be that as it may, if it is a very small place, it is amply covered by the provision with regard to any land which forms part of any park, garden, pleasure ground, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling house; and, if it is a large park, it is covered by the existing provision. In addition to that, in the actual draft the clause would seem even to cut down the provision under the existing Act because, even as altered, it introduces the words "if sites not less suitable can be obtained on other land." The exclusion under the existing Statute is perfectly clean cut. Why there should be a distinction made between England and Ireland it is very difficult to see, when the provision, which has been in force in England and Ireland for nineteen years, has been found ample.

You must also remember that there is a Government official who intervenes between the scheme and any person who is aggrieved in any view of it, and that official may presumably, even though he is an Irish official, be allowed to be desirous of preventing anything which would be unfair or unjust. I understand that a proposition of this nature was suggested in another place and that it did not meet with approval there, and I would suggest that really, even in those interests which the noble Earl has at stake, it would be better not to press this Amendment, because it might, certainly not be agreed to. The only Amendment if it be necessary—and I certainly doubt it—would be the incorporation of the existing provision of the Statute of 1890.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

The argument of the noble and learned Lord would certainly be on the side of satisfaction to my noble friend, I am sure, if it could be held to be absolutely correct; but, although I cannot profess to be able to interpret the law as the noble and learned Lord can, all the advice I have taken has gone to the opposite view. That is to say, that the section of the Act of 1890, to which the noble and learned Lord alluded, is not incorporated in this Bill—

LORD SHANDON

Well, incorporate it.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON—and if these words are not read into this Bill, it is quite certain that some provision of this kind is specially called for.

LORD SHANDON

I agree. If it is not incorporated introduce the existing words.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I would remind the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill of the great change in Ireland since the 1890 Act was passed. The transfer of a very large portion of the country to the tenants of course minimises the amount of land that can be available, except that which has a tenant right upon it. All public bodies are naturally anxious to take land which has no tenant right upon it, even though their own personal predilections did not lead them to go on the land. It would be really intolerable that the actual surroundings of a dwelling house should be taken.

My noble friend has carefully omitted the word "domain," on which there was a good deal of discussion in another place, as being a word perhaps of wider interpretation. But with regard to the home farm, the park and immediate fields, which are really part of the dwelling house, we feel we have a right to protection, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will see his way to tell us whether the view which Lord Shandon has taken is a correct one. In any case, if we incorporate that section of the Act of 1890 into this Bill, I think the words "home farm" must be added, because, as noble Lords from Ireland know, the protection of the word "farm" is not the same in Ireland as in this country.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This matter requires to be a little carefully considered, because an Amendment similar to, though not verbally identical with, that which has been moved by the noble Earl, was moved by the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons, and meeting with very general opposition was ultimately withdrawn. It was opposed on the Nationalist side, on the Irish Unionist side, both from Ulster and other parts of Ireland, and also by a number of British members. It was withdrawn on the statement by the Chief Secretary that he would issue a Regulation to the following effect, not of course tying himself to the exact words— In the selection of sites due regard shall be paid to the importance of interfering as little as possible with the amenities of any private residence or land, and care shall be taken that such amenities shall not be injuriously affected by any scheme if suitable sites which are unobjectionable are obtainable. I agree entirely that noble Lords who come from Ireland are entitled to point to the circumstances, notorious to all of us, which prevail in Ireland to-day, and they are entitled to claim that they must not be treated in their relationship with the local authorities in the same way as noble Lords who come from Scotland, from England, or from Wales. It is a reasonable claim which nobody can disregard, and before a conclusion is reached I will indicate one or two observations which do not leave out of sight that consideration. There is, in the first place, very considerable protection (which the noble Earl would do well to consider whether it is adequate or not) against the improper exercise of a local authority's powers. Suppose a local authority, in which by reason of its constitution the noble Earl and the noble Viscount have lost confidence, proposes to acquire land compulsorily. The first necessary step is for a local inquiry to be held by an inspector of the Local Government Board, who hears all parties interested. The inspector is bound to consider all objections, and he may alter the proposal as he thinks fit. If he makes an order confirming the proposal any person interested has the right of appeal against the order to the Local Government Board or to the county court judge. It is a little difficult to say what further protection can be given. These are the provisions of the Labourers' Act 1906 as applied by the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act 1908.

I think perhaps the noble Lords were under a slight misconception as to the non-exclusion of domains and home farms in the present Bill. I have been reading the noble Viscount's speech on the Second Reading and he said that for the first time in an Irish Act protection had not been offered to the domain or the home farm. It is true that the present Bill gives no powers of compulsorily acquiring land. Powers were given by the Act of 1890, and it is to that Act one would naturally look for any exception to this clause provided that any such exception was then considered necessary or proper. I have never heard that any inconvenience or hardship has been occasioned by the fact that no such Amendment as is now recommended was put forward in relation to that Bill on which it would have been relevant and proper. In this case it is hardly consistent with its general objects. I hope for these reasons noble Lords will think that there is adequate protection, but I shall be glad to hear their views as it is the desire of the Government to recognise that they are in a special position and one which requires every degree of reasonable protection. The suggestion I make is, that they are already protected.

THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM

I am sure your Lordships will hear with great pleasure the opinion of the Lord Chancellor that your Lordships who live in Ireland, and anyone who owns land, is sufficiently protected under the Act of 1890, but I cannot help thinking, I may be wrong, that the Amendment which has been moved protects us a bit more. Your Lordships know well the condition of Ireland at the present moment, and it is quite possible that some individual, through vindictiveness, might attempt to get the better of someone who is his enemy for the time being and who possesses land. For that reason the Amendment I believe protects the holder of land a little better than is provided for in the Bill. It is to the interest of everyone to-day to try and induce as many people to remain in Ireland and farm as possible, and many of the domains to-day are farms. If the words "home farm" are introduced into the Amendment, and into the Bill, they would assist to protect those lands. So far as the local authority is concerned I think the owner is amply protected by the last words in the Amendment. As the Lord Chancellor has said he could appeal to a higher authority. On the other hand the local authority is protected, and I would therefore like to support the Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is, of course, not the same Amendment as that which was put forward in the House of Commons and subsequently withdrawn. It is an Amendment which meets some of the criticisms which were made in the House of Commons, and the last words "if sites as suitable can be obtained on other land" does, I think, meet some of the difficulties that were felt, I gather that those of your Lordships who have special knowledge of Ireland are of opinion that this Amendment would be of value and I will therefore adopt this course, if it is convenient I will not finally bind myself to accept it now, but I represent to those who have more direct responsibility than I have in this matter the course of the debate and the view I have formed about it. I will not resist the Notion to insert this Amendment at this stage.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

I understood the noble and learned Lord to use the words "suitable sites" instead of "not less suitable."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Earl made some slight alteration. Perhaps he would be good enough to read out the words he proposes.

THE EARL OF MAYO

"If suitable sites can be obtained on other land."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Those are the words I meant to put in.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHANDON moved to insert the following new clause: .When it is proposed to take lands compulsorily for the purposes of the Act of 1800, and it shall have been proved to the satisfaction of the arbitrator or other authority appointed to assess compensation, that for a period of twelve years prior to the hearing of the claim, such lands or part thereof have been permitted to remain derelict such arbitrator or authority shall award as compensation for purchase of such lands or part thereof as aforesaid, a nominal sum only. Lands shall be deemed to have remained derelict if having been originally occupied by dwelling-houses such houses have been permitted during such period to remain in a ruinous condition unoccupied as dwellings and unproductive.

The noble Lord said: Although I have put down this Amendment, I am not at all pleased with the phraseology of it. It is framed to meet a real difficulty, but it is very hard to frame in suitable language the necessary clause. I should explain, my Lords, how the matter arises. The city of Dublin is a city which is unfortunately to a great extent, so far as its houses are concerned, falling into decay, by reason of the departure for residence to the suburbs of the people who formerly lived in houses within the city boundaries. Unfortunately the trade of Dublin has not, as in the case of London, required the use of the sites which are thus abandoned for trade purposes. The position in Dublin is this. There is a certain class of buildings dating from the eighteenth century, and others of the cheap buildings at the beginning of the nineteenth century. These have been allowed to fall into worse and worse repair. They go through all the stages of decay—first as cheap lodgings, then as tenement houses, and then the time arrives when you read in the newspapers of a house collapsing. At the present time—the figures are somewhat extraordinary—there are over 1,000, as I understand, of those gaps in the older parts of Dublin caused by the simple collapse and decay of buildings.

The position is this. You have got a street in which there are one, two, three, and perhaps half a dozen houses which have probably not only decayed but are lying in ruins. The sites are a kind of no-man's land, being covered with dead cats and tin cans, and so they remain for perhaps forty years. I have known such sites for fully thirty years. The result is not only that these wretched heaps of rubbish are an eye-sore, but there is never the slightest chance of the sites being used for practical purposes; but if there is any compulsory scheme for the acquisition of the sites they at once get a site value of exactly the same value as the adjoining sites where there are tumble down houses which have not yet been closed. If people allow their property to remain uncontrolled, and in the possession of others, for twelve years the law destroys their right to recover it. If people leave sites of this kind absolutely derelict, and an eye-sore, and in a sense a public nuisance for twelve years, it seems fair enough that the Municipal Authorities should have at least a right to take them and utilise them for the purpose of putting up decent, respectable dwellings. Some of these rites are an acre in extent, and of hers will take two or three houses. Unless some power is given to the local authorities this thing will continue. You will have more and more decay and no amelioration of the situation.

The proposal which I make is this, that "When it is proposed to take lands compulsorily for the purposes of the Act of 1890, and it shall have been proved to the satisfaction of the arbitrator or other authority appointed to assess compensation, that for a period of twelve years prior to the hearing of the claim, such lands or part thereof have been permitted to remain derelict such arbitrator or authority shall award as compensation for purchase of such lands or Rut thereof as aforesaid, a nominal sum only. Lands shall be deemed to have remained derelict if having been originally occupied by dwelling houses such houses have been permitted during such period to remain in a ruinous condition unoccupied as dwellings and unproductive." The last words have been put in to meet an obvious injustice which might be done. The ruins may still be productive in the sense of rent being paid continuously to the head landlord, and of course it frequently happens that leases in Ireland have no clause of re-entry, and all the landlord can do is to receive his rent. Of course in cases of that kind he ought to be compensated if the site is taken, and consequently it occurred to me to put in this provision.

Even so I am not satisfied, but there is a real difficulty to be met, and I suggest to the Government that even though they may not see their way to accept this particular Amendment, on Report they should do something to meet this question. The question was raised in another place, when a proposal which I think was most unfair was withdrawn. The Amendment there proposed was to hand over sites after five years. That would obviously be unfair. I suggest twelve years because it exactly follows the analogy of the Statute of Limitations. I think that the landlord who allows his land to become derelict, useless and unproductive, is in the same position as the man who abandons his property for twelve years and allows someone else to take it.

Amendment moved— Insert the said new clause—(Lord Shandon.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

The noble Lord who has moved this Amendment told us he was rather dissatisfied with some points of form in the drafting, but I submit to your Lordships that there are defects in the Amendment which are more serious than form and go very much to the question of substance. What in fact does this clause propose to do. It proposes that if this land lies derelict for twelve years it may be acquired compulsorily by the local authority without compensation, or with only nominal compensation. So that the proposal is a definite proposal that if the land has so lain, after twelve years it shall be confiscated. I do not know whether a proposal of that kind commends itself very strongly to your Lordships. The noble Lord has laid stress upon the fact that in Dublin and some other places there are these derelict sites and houses, and he suggests that if the owners have allowed them to continue in this state for twelve years or so they should get nothing for them at all. I should like to point out this, that if this is really the case, and if the land has lain derelict for that time, it will be very difficult when the local authority acquires this land compulsorily for the owners, or those who have rights in the land, to prove there is much value. I submit it would be much better therefore to leave the matter to assessment in the ordinary Way under the Housing Acts—to assess whatever compensation there may be due rather than to draw the knife across it and say there shall be no compensation at all.

I should like to point this cut also, that this proposal is not only very sweeping but it may be also exceedingly unfair, because there may be many reasons other than mere culpability on the part of the owners to account for this land being allowed to be in this position. For instance, we have heard of legal proceedings about lands, which take a considerable time not only in this country but in Ireland. Then there is the case of boycotting, which has nothing to do with the culpability of the individual. Nothing could have been done on the land; further there are, of course, all those difficulties with which we are quite familiar in the matter of building and altering buildings during the war. A similar Amendment—I do not know whether it was quite in the same words—

LORD SHANDON

Not in the same words.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think it was somewhat similar. Anyhow, the point made by the Chief Secretary applies also in this ease, that if the land was undeveloped the land which would have been subject to land duty therefore would have been paying some charge to the State. But I submit that the provisions of the Housing Acts, as they are, are not capable of dealing with this particular question, and it is un- necessary and unadvisable to introduce a purely confiscatory Amendment which would enable the State to take land without giving any value for it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 11:

Amendment moved— *Page 8, lines 21 and 22, leave out ("so much of section eleven of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, as") and insert ("section six of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1911, which").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 30, leave out ("the local authority") and insert ("a local authority within the meaning of Part III of the Act of 1890").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 10, leave out ("or council").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14:

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 11, leave out ("from the date").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15:

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 36, at beginning insert ("In the case of loans made") and after ("period") insert ("after the passing of this Act").—(The Lad Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

Loans to private persons.

16. During a period of two years from the passing of this Act, the money which may be advanced by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to any private person for the purpose of constructing houses for the working classes on the security of a mortgage of any land or dwellings solely may, if the Commissioners think fit, and if the houses are constructed in accordance with plans approved by the local Government Board, exceed the amount specified in subsection (2) of section sixty-seven of the Act of 1890, but shall not exceed seventy-five per cent. of the value of the estate or interest in such land or dwellings proposed to be mortgaged, and advances may be made by instalments from time to time as the building of the houses on the land mortgaged progresses, so that the total of the advances do not at any time exceed the amount last mentioned, and a mortgage may accordingly be made to secure advances so to be made from time to time.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON moved to leave out "two" ["During a period of two years"] and insert "five." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which I should have thought would commend itself to the Government, but I will not waste the time of your Lordships for more than a moment upon it. This clause limits the period for which money is to be lent to two years, and I should have thought that, considering how long it takes to get to work and how difficult it is at present to get materials and labour, that it would more have met the view of the Government if they had decided to advance the money for five years from the passing of this Act, granted that security was excellent in every case and there being no possible loss to the Government in the transaction. If this were a matter in which the Government were leaking a sacrifice I would not-trouble your Lordships upon it, but that is not so, and I hope the noble and learned Lord will not think that I am doing anything except to forward the interests of the Bill in suggesting that what has been a great concession to landlords—namely, that they should be able when necessary and when they need capital to borrow for five years on giving proper security—should be introduced into this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 9, leave out ("two") and insert ("five").—(Viscount Midleton.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I doubt whether the noble Viscount would be wise in pressing this Amendment. Clause 16 authorises the Board of Works in Ireland to lend money to private persons for housing purposes to an amount not exceeding 75 per cent. of the value of the property for two years. The noble Viscount seeks to extend the two years to a period of five years. In the first place this is clearly a case of a privilege Amendment, and unless there is some point of very real and evident substance in a privilege Amendment it may be a question whether it is wise to send it to another place. Here I do not think that the view would be taken, or we could reasonably ask that it should be taken, in another place that there was such a point of substance, because the period has been limited to two years in both the corresponding English and Scottish clauses, and the English clause has actually been accepted by your Lordships.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17:

Amendments moved—

Page 11, line 26, after ("authority'') insert ("within the meaning of Part III of the Act of 1890, of the district in which the house is situated")

Page 11, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("of the district in which the house is situated").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18:

Amendments moved—

Page 12, line 23, leave out ("carried") and insert ("constructed and laid")

Page 12, line 31, leave out ("which are")

Page 12, line 36, after ("authority") insert ("or on appeal, the Local Government Board").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I need only say about the Amendments in my name on this clause that they insert in this Bill the view which your Lordships took on Lord Bledisloe's Amendment to the English Bill.

Amendments moved—

Page 15, line 18, after ("may") insert ("make application to the county court and the county court may")

Page 15, line 30, leave out ("local authority") and insert ("county court")

Page 15, line 32, leave out ("local authority") and insert ("county court")

Page 15, line 33, leave out lines 33 to 36 inclusive

Page 15, line 37, leave out ("subsections (3) and (4)") and insert ("subsection (3)")

Page 15, line 38, after ("thirty-seven") insert ("except subsection (4)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 15, leave out ("plans approved") and insert ("any regulations made").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to insert the following new clause:".—(1) It shall be lawful for any local authority, public utility society, or housing trust having provided houses under any such scheme as is referred to in this Act to sell, with the approval of the Local Government Board, all or any of those houses to any persons residing or intending to reside therein. Provided that this section shall not apply to ally house of which, in the opinion of the local authority, the market value exceeds eight hundred pounds. (2) Nothing in this Act shall exclude or interfere with the operation of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899 (as amended by this Act), in relation to any such house as aforesaid."

The noble Lord said: I apologise to the House for not being here to move the first Amendment which my noble friend Lord Mayo moved on my behalf. It was perhaps not unsuitable in a Bill concerning Ireland and was a consequential Amendment relating to other Amendments which have not yet been submitted to the House. The first of these I now propose to move. These Amendments are all moved at the request of the Corporation of Belfast, not merely for selfish reasons, but because they believe that such alteration will be of benefit to the Bill as a whole and to Ireland. I am sure that your Lordships will give them that consideration which is their due coming from a body of such importance.

The first Amendment which I propose is a new clause after Clause 20 giving power to local authorities, public utility societies, or housing trusts to sell all or any of the houses to any persons residing or intending to reside therein. I should like to point out that this is subject to their obtaining the approval of the Local Government Board, and that proviso certainly makes it less difficult to grant their request. It is doubtful if the above-mentioned societies and authorities have power to sell or otherwise dispose of houses provided under the scheme, and it is desirable to remove any ambiguity on that point. Section (1) of the Bill provides that a Scheme should be prepared and submitted to the Local Government Board under Part III of the Working Classes Act, 1890, but Part III of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, makes no provision for the sale of houses, and a doubt may arise as to the power to sell.

In the Report of the committee appointed to inquire into the housing question it will be found that they strongly recommended that these powers should be given. I find that in paragraphs 74 and 75 of that Report it is said— We desire, however, to point out the advantages of selling to owners for their own occupation. These advantages could be attained to some extent by empowering local authorities and public utility societies, with the approval of the central authority in both cases, to sell the new houses to prospective occupying owners.'' It seems desirable that local authorities should have the power to sell to tenants desirous of purchasing, inasmuch as the sale would be to the obvious interest of both parties. And, in addition to encouraging thrift on the part of the tenant, and ultimately snaking him the owner of the house, the sale would enable local authorities and public utility societies to release a portion of the capital expenditure on a scheme, and would thereby put them in funds for the purpose of further development in the way of building operations.

Amendment moved— Insert the said new clause.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My noble friend has moved a new clause to enable a local authority, public utility society, or housing trust which Elias provided houses, to sell them to any person residing or intending to reside therein. The proposition itself is completely unexceptionable. The only thing which, in his zeal, the noble Lord has omitted to notice is that this proposal is already embedded in a previous portion of the Bill. If my noble friend will look at Clause 10 (1) (b), he will see that among the powers of the local authority are these:—With the consent of the Local Government Board, they may sell or lease any houses on the land; and this quite clearly gives fully that power to local authorities which the noble Lord wishes to give them, with his usual generosity, a second time.

As regards the trusts and public utility societies, I submit that that portion of his. Amendment is really unnecessary or inadvisable. It is unnecessary because these societies have power to draw up rules under which they can sell these buildings so erected to their members or their tenants, and therefore they do not want any statutory authority to do it. I would suggest that it is much better to allow them to cleat with their own property in their own way, just as my noble friend would desire to deal with his own property in his own way, and net impose upon them any sort of obligation which they really might find rather inconvenient. I hope, therefore, my noble friend will not press his Amendment.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

My noble friend tells me that the provision is already in the Bill, and I gladly take it from him that that is so.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord must not be under any delusion. My noble friend said that as far as the local authorities were concerned the power was in the Bill. He must not think that my noble friend said that housing trusts and public utility societies are covered by 10 (1) (b). What he said was that these bodies conducted their affairs under rules, which no doubt had been very carefully considered, and it would be desirable to make quite sure that they wanted them altered by Statute before your Lordships did so.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

I understood that, but I was speaking principally on behalf of local authorities.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Amendments on this clause are purely drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 16, line 39, leave out ("the lessee of") and insert ("any person interested in")

Page 16, Page 17, line 3, after ("that") insert ("by reason of")

Page 16, line 4, leave out ("do not admit of such conversion") and insert ("or of any restrictive covenant affecting the house or otherwise, such conversion is prohibited or restricted")

Page 16, line 5, leave out ("entitled to any interest in the house") and insert ("interested")

Page 17, line 6, after ("lease") insert ("or other instrument imposing the prohibition or restriction").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22:

Repair of houses.

22.—(1) 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, not being item than twenty-one days specified in the notice, to execute such works as may be necessary to make the house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.

(2) if the notice given by the local authority is not complied with, the authority may, at the expiration of the time specified in the notice given by them to the owner, do the work required to be done.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (1), after "habitation," to insert "Provided that the owner may, within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice, by written notice to the local authority, declare his intention of closing the house for human habitation, and thereupon a dosing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect of such house."

The LORD CHANCELLOR

Before the noble Viscount moves, may I save a little time? This is the same Amendment as was adopted in the, English Bill, and I accept it subject to a point I have not time to look into, as to whether or not this covers a small Amendment which the Commons made to the Lords Amendment upon this point, and in which the Lords acquiesced last night. I am not sure that this point is raised, but subject to that I accept it.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

In the Commons Amendment it was only where the house required complete reconstruction that the closing order was allowed. Now in Ireland we have a very strong reason for asking for different treatment. The whole circumstances are different. In the first place, I am afraid there are a great number of houses in Ireland which should be rebuilt completely, but which would not, from the Irish point of view, be held to need complete reconstruction, and we are therefore apprehensive of the position which the landlord may be put in vis à vis the local authorities in this respect.

With regard to closing, there is this great difference between Ireland and England. In this country there has been a great increase of population. Ireland has had a diminishing population, and I believe I am right in saying that there is only one town in the south of Ireland at this moment which had a larger population at the last census than at the one before. Therefore there is not the same objection which the House of Commons took to closing a house where it is absolutely necessary in Ireland. The House of Commons refused your Lordships' Amendment on the ground that it was not desirable to close any houses at this moment in this country. And therefore they only took it where total reconstruction was needed. But I would tell your Lordships, in case it has escaped you, that the Minister in charge of the Scotch Bill actually in Grand Committee put down this very clause, and only withdrew it because the question was in debate between the two Houses. So that it was in the mind of the Government, as much as it was in the mind of the noble Lord who moved it here.

I am afraid we regard this Clause as vital. We base ourselves on this point, first that the whole object of the Clause is to get the local authorities to build for themselves where it is needed, and nothing would be more unwise than to give them the loophole of saying "We can go upon the owner of the houses, bad as they may be, and say 'Put these rotten houses (if they are rotten) in better condition and avoid our having to borrow for building property.'" That is most undesirable. But, in addition, we have to remember what the noble and learned Lord said so truly at the beginning of the discussion. The circumstances of Ireland at this moment are such that it would not be fair to leave the owner without proper protection from the local authority. I would add that, in the opinion of all my noble friends with whom I have consulted, it would have been very preferable that this work should be carried out by Commissioners rather than by the local authorities. This is what we had hoped, and I do not think it would have been a greater charge upon the Government.

There is one other remark I should like to make now to save time. The Amend- ment which follows asks for the additional protection of an appeal to the Local Government Board. I think that is most necessary. At this moment the local authority might come in and say, "You have twelve houses put them all in tenantable repair at once; we give you two months to do it." Unless you could go to the Local Government Board who would probably say that nobody could do it under four or six months in the present condition of Ireland you have the local authority putting in their own man with an unlimited power to spend any amount of money they like. For this reason I hope that the noble and learned Lord will realise that we have the fullest possible justification for what we are asking. If it is not possible to concede this, at any rate we feel that the Government ought to establish some intervening authority between the local authority and the owner.

Amendment moved—

Page 17, line 17, after ("habitation") insert ("Provided that the owner may, within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice, by written notice to the local authority, declare his intention of closing the house for human habitation, and thereupon a closing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect of such house")

Page 17, line 19, after ("with") insert ("and if the owner has not given such notice as aforesaid").—(Viscount Midleton.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am obliged to the noble Viscount for his clear explanation; in fact, I discovered while he was speaking that what I had before me was the Scottish clause (to which he referred) which was at one time proposed. The Government is able to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next three Amendments are purely drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 17, line 22, leave out ("expense") and insert ("expenses")

Page 17, line 39, after ("and") insert ("if recovered from the occupier")

Page 17, line 39, after ("deducted") insert ("by him").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I accept the next Amendment, which is one-standing in the name of the noble Viscount.

Amendment moved—

Page 18, line 4, at end insert as a new subsection: (6) Any question arising between the owner and the local authority as to the reasonable nature of any notice given by the authority to the owner under this section shall be determined by the Local Government Board whose decision shall be, final."—(Viscount Midleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

The clause which I now move is in the English Bill, and was accepted by the other House of Parliament.

Amendment moved—

Insert the following new clause: .Subject to any conditions prescribed by the Local Government Board with the consent of the Treasury, any bricks or other building materials which have been acquired by a Government Department for the purposes of the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes, may, during a period of five years from the passing of this Act, be sold to any person who undertakes to use the same forthwith for the purpose of erecting or improving houses for the working classes, and to comply with the said conditions at a price sufficient to cover the cost of replacement at the time of the sale of the materials so sold."—(Viscount Midleton.).

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 23 to 29 agreed to.

Clause 30:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 22, at end insert ("Provided that any rules with respect to the qualifications or conditions of employment of architects to be so employed, shall be made after consultation with the President of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

All these Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 20, line 37, leave out the first ("sell") and insert ("sale") and leave out ("the power to sell") and insert ("sale")

Page 20, line 39, leave out ("sale") and insert ("sell")

Page 21, line 3, leave out ("Act, 1893, or any amendment thereof") and insert ("Acts, 1893 to 1913")

Page 21, line 17, after ("in") insert ("section one hundred and nine of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, or section forty-three of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, or in")

Page 21, line 18, after ("buildings") insert ("including the drainage thereof")

Page 21,line 19, after ("construction") insert ("and drainage").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32:

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to insert as a new subsection: "(2) Where a local authority being the council of a county borough are satisfied, in accordance with section two of the said Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, as to the value of and title to the ownership of a house in respect of which they have received an application for an advance then, unless and except so far as the Local Government Board may in any particular case otherwise direct, the title to the premises in respect of which the advance is made together with the charge securing the advance shall forthwith, upon the application of the local authority, be registered under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the advance may be made without any further investigation of such value or title or any sanction of the Local Government Board."

The noble Lord said: I can understand that the Government may find a little difficulty in accepting this new subsection, because naturally there is very strong feeling that all questions of title in matters of this kind should be absolutely cleared up. But I think I shall be able to prove that there is ground for making an exception in the case to which I refer. I should like to point out in the first place that I only suggest that this subsection should operate in the case of a local authority which is the council of a county borough, and there are only six such in Ireland. The existing practice under the Act is that after investigation of title by the local authority, and valuation made on their behalf by their valuer, further investigation of the title has to be made by the registration authority in Dublin. The registration authority in Dublin who makes this second investigation of title has to investigate the various titles arising out of sales under the Land Acts in Ireland. In consequence of the numerous titles he has to investigate, much delay necessarily ensues in investigating a. title sent up under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. Furthermore the valuer who is sent down by the Local Government Board to make the second valuation usually waits until a number of valuations accumulate and in consequence the completion of any one franc-action frequently occupies as long as five or six months. It is found in practice that this militates very much against the free working of the Act, as a vendor is not prepared to lie out of the purchase money for six months after making the contract for sale, and the Corporation are not in a position to advance the loan until the title together with the charge is registered. It should be noted that the Treasury are in no way concerned with the transaction as the advances are made out of moneys raised by the corporation, therefore any loss accruing owing to a blot on the title or fraudulent valuation would fall upon the corporation.

I understand that there is some doubt about this point, and I should like to point out to the noble and learned Lord that I believe it is the case under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act that the Government hold the corporation liable to them and can therefore recover from them. In the case of Belfast there has not been an instance where, after the title has been proved to their satisfaction, it has been rejected by the Registration authority in Dublin. The same observation applies to the valuation made by the Valuer of the local authority. When an Amendment similar to this was before the Committee of the House of Commons it was objected to by the Attorney-General on the ground that it made no provision for the registration of the charge. The noble and learned Lord will see that this has been rectified in my Amendment as it now stands. The Attorney-General also suggested that Clause 7 of the Bill enabled the purchaser to enter into possession of the premises, but I understand that, as a matter of fact, neither the purchaser nor the vendor is satisfied with this clause, and that it would be im- possible for the property to change hands under it. In these circumstances I hope the Government may see their way to accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 37, at the end insert the said now subsection.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is not a possible Amendment, and it deals with a very important subject-matter—the registration of the title of a house on the security of which a local authority is advancing money to the tenant to enable him to purchase his house under the Small Dwellings Acquisition. Act. Now, that Act requires that the title of a house should be registered under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, which corresponds to the English Land Transfer Act. What is the effect of this registration? The effect of it is that the validity of the title registered is guaranteed by the State—a somewhat important matter. Any mistake in the registration may not only cause grave injury but it may be the subject of a claim for compensation to be made out of public moneys.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

Which will fall upon the corporation to pay.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Will the noble Lord kindly wait a moment? I am not even clear about that. It is necessary that all titles should be carefully investigated before they ace registered, and this is done by the Central Office of the Land Registry of Ireland, a Government Department which, as the noble Lord knows, is equipped with a fully qualified staff of experts. If it be the fact that the intention of this Amendment is that such charges and claims should be borne by the local authority, it is certainly not the fact that even the local authorities in Ireland specified by the mover are equipped with a staff of experts in any way comparable to those who have collected years, and indeed generations, of experience in doing their registration work. It is proposed in effect that if the county borough council is satisfied with the title it is to be registered without any further investigation on the part of the Land Registry. As the noble Lord will remember, the Chief Secretary said in the debate in another place that he would take immediate steps to expedite the proceedings in the Land Registry, and effect, of course, will be given to this assurance. Your Lordships will not fail to observe further that the Amendment seeks to make the local authority's estimate of value conclusive. That is a very dangerous provision. The value of the premises, of course, is a matter in which the Board of Works are concerned as they may be called upon to advance the money to the local authority. If there were no others, that would be a grave objection to the proposal of the noble Lord, and I hope your Lordships will not give any encouragement to this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to insert the following new clause: "In exercise of the powers of borrowing conferred by Part III of the Act of 1890 and by the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, respectively, any local authority being the council of a county borough may for the purposes of those enactments, or either of them, or for any purposes of this Act to which capital is properly applicable with the sanction of the Local Government Board borrow money by way of overdraft from their bankers and may apply in or towards the payment of interest on and the repayment of money so borrowed such of their funds, rates, and revenues as may be approved for that purpose by the Local Government Board."

The noble Lord said: This clause has also been suggested by the Corporation of Belfast. Its object is to enable local authorities to borrow on an overdraft from their bankers. I should like to point out the safeguards attending this. In the first place, it can be done only with the sanction of the Local Government Board; in the second place, it can be done only by a local authority which is the council of a county borough. This case is limited even further than the former case, because in all cases where the valuation is under £200,000 the money is advanced by the Government, and this is the case with all the urban authorities in Ireland with the exception of Dublin and Belfast, so it would really affect only those two towns. This would enable the local authority to borrow on overdraft at their bankers, and the financing of housing schemes would be greatly facilitated.

It is obvious that the capital expenditure on a large scheme must be spread over a substantial period owing to the shortage of both labour and material. I understand that Belfast proposes an expenditure of something like £5,000,000 on houses. It will generally be found that one large loan can be raised by a local authority on more favourable terms than a series of smaller loans. Thus, by borrowing from bankers, local authorities will be able to avoid the issue of small loans and save the payment of interest on money that might otherwise have to be raised before it was required. Perhaps I might illustrate this. Suppose that Belfast or Dublin decide to raise £2,000,000. Under the Bill as it stands at present they will have to raise the £2,000,000 at once. They would probably only be able to spend about £500,000; and therefore with the other £1,500,000 all they could do would be to put it on deposit at the bank for which they would get 3 per cent, while they would be paying perhaps 8 per cent, on the money advanced. This would not affect them, because I understand the money would be paid to them by the Treasury. Therefore the Amendment is in the interests of the State and not specially of the corporations who may borrow under it. I hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to agree to this new clause being inserted.

Amendment moved— Insert the said new clause.—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

The proposal of my noble friend is that instead of borrowing in the usual way the local authorities should be able to borrow by way of overdraft from bankers on the security, I understand, of these houses. I would suggest to my noble friend that that would be bad local finance. The proper way to deal with the borrowing on housing would be to borrow on longer term loans and stock. Moreover, I am not sure, considering the large sums in which my noble friend was dealing, whether he would find the bankers themselves very anxious to lend these large sums on this sort of security. I certainly know that in England the banks would not do such a thing; I do not know what they do in Ireland.

I am not sure whether my noble friend suggested it, but I think it was part of his suggestion that by borrowing for these short terms, say of six months, from the bankers, these county boroughs might be able at a later date to borrow money at much cheaper rates than they would now and to tide over a difficult period. That no doubt is, if I may say so, a plausible suggestion, but the Treasury take the very strong and definite view upon that point that that hope is entirely illusory. I must confess I prefer their view on the subject to the more hopeful and rosier prognostications of my noble friend. I do not know whether my noble friend is aware that these suggestions have been made already in the case of England and Scotland, and that in both cases the Treasury returned a direct negative. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not, in the case of Ireland and of the Irish banks and Irish towns, press this Amendment to an issue.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

In view of the answer of my noble friend, I feel it is useless to press the clause; but as a matter of fact overdrafts were allowed. I believe £800,000 was allowed to Belfast for the purpose of subscribing to the Victory Loan.

VISCOUNT PEEL

But that security is the finest in the country and one which you can always sell. Houses you cannot.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining clauses agreed to.