HC Deb 31 July 1930 vol 242 cc872-4

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Reason for disagreeing to Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Johnston.]

Lords Reason considered accordingly.

Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 14, leave out from the word "includes" to the word "and" in line 20, and insert such deficiency in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls as is likely to injure or endanger the health of the occupants of the house, except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the default or neglect of the said occupants.


I beg to move, "That this House doth insist upon its disagreement with the Lords in the said Amendment."

In view of the decision which the House has just taken, unanimously, it would be expedient, in our opinion, that the Scottish Bill should conform to the English Bill in this matter. I therefore move to disagree with the Lords Amendment, and I shall then move an Amendment to the Bill in lieu thereof which would have the effect of deleting entirely the definition of "disrepair", so as to bring the two Bills into common form.


I think my hon. Friends on this side will be well advised to agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposal, as they did in the last case. It is obviously an occasion on which we have in office and in charge of these Bills people who are unable to give satisfactory definitions of repair, and under these circumstances we are probably better without any definition.

Amendment made in lieu of the Lords Amendment disagreed to: In page 37, line 14, leave out from the beginning to the word "and in line 20.—[Mr. Johnston.]


On a point of Order. Do we not have to explain to the House of Lords why we disagree with one of their Amendments?


Yes, if it is required I understood, however, that when we took out some words in lieu of the Amendment with which we did not agree, it was not necessary. In that case, I was informed, the formation of a Committee to draw up reasons was not required.


I understood that there was a definite Amendment made in another place with which we disagreed, and I should have thought, therefore, whatever our subsequent action may have been that we should have had a committee appointed to explain our reasons for so disagreeing.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico)

I understand the position is that in circumstances similar to this case it has not been customary to appoint a committee to assign reasons.