HC Deb 02 July 1941 vol 372 cc1424-53

Again considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes

I beg to move, in page 2, after the words last inserted, to insert: (6) Where in pursuance of the provisions of this section the rent of any land which is unfit by reason of war damage is reduced the landlord to whom such rent is payable shall as and from the time when the reduction was effected be entitled to reduce pro rata any rent, charge or mortgage interest due from him to any other person in respect of the land and such other person shall be entitled successively to reduce his like obligations in respect of the land. This is an Amendment to Clause Ito add a new Sub-section designed to make more suitable and just the adjustment of liabilities between various people interested in the same piece of land or the same building, when the building has suffered war damage. The Amendment deals not only with the ground rents, which come subsequently under Clause 9, but with all forms of intermediate liabilities. As hon. Members of the Committee know, on some pieces of land you may have a ground rent, and improved ground rent, a long lease, a shorter lease and a very short one, which is the immediate title of the tenant in actual occupation. The Amendment is designed to deal with them all upon this simple basis. When the actual building has been damaged, the adjustment between the immediate tenant in occupation, either the person who is living there or is working and carrying on business in the particular building, and the immediate landlord, is liability adjustment. It is conceded already in the Bill that the liability will have to be adjusted with the cubic capacity of the building in respect of which the rent which is being paid has been reduced.

The principle underlying the Amendment is that once the courts, by virtue of this Bill, have reduced the rent payable by the tenant in actual occupation, then proportionately that reduction in liability should be passed up the scale to the immediate landlord, the longer lease, the very long lease, the holder of the improved ground rent and the holder of the ultimate ground rent. As things stand at present, to take the very simple case of the ground rent, the tenant is under the liability to pay to the ground landlord, when, in fact, on the other side, nothing is coming to him from the property. If he disclaims, he loses all possible benefit from the right he has in the land, and it is no answer to say that the holder of the ground rent, the ultimate freeholder, also loses everything, because in his case he still retains the land. The intermediate rights have, on the basis of disclaimer, been completely extinguished. It has been suggested that interests like ground rents and improved ground rents ought to be considered as something different from the ordinary rack rent paid by the sitting tenant. They are an investment secured on the whole of the property, and they are, by the definition in this Bill, less than the lettable value of the land, plus the property upon it. In law it is right but in fact the security upon which these ground rents and improved ground rents have been created is not just the security of the piece of land, but the security of the piece of land upon which a house has been built or upon which something is to be built. When the building has gone or is half gone, the conditions underlying the security have been changed, and the ground landlord and others with intermediate rights ought to take their share of the knock all the way up to the sitting tenant, who has to take it any way.

In the Amendment before the Committee there is included the word "mortgage." It says: Reduce pro rata any rent, charge or mortgage interest. I would willingly submit to a ruling that matters of mortgages as a whole fall outside the. scope of the Bill. I have included this term in the Amendment because, as no doubt the Committee will be aware, in a great many building society mortgages there is what is called a determining clause, which makes the buyer of the house a tenant of the building society. Although there is room for improvement in the position between mortgagor and mortgagee in general I do not seek to force that into the Amendment but merely to cover the case where the mortgagor is the tenant of the mortgagee.

The Attorney-General

I do not quite understand the idea behind this Amendment, but I think that, on the whole, it would be a mistake and that it is much better to leave the principal Act to operate in the case of the leases which are left under it, than to try to impinge on results which arise under this Measure. If a tenancy goes to the court as a short tenancy, there seems little doubt that the decision of the court would be accepted, although perhaps it is not right to bind the landlord. The landlord himself may be the lessee and I think it would be much better to leave these people to deal with their rights, as they can under the principal Act. If a house is unfit and a person wants to disclaim, he can do so, but I think that the idea of carrying this reduction of rent on up the hierarchy would be open to technical objection. A superior landlord would say, "I was not a party to these proceedings, and I ought not to be fined."

Sir R. Tasker

I agree that the ground landlord should share the burden, but I am unable to agree with the argument of the hon. Gentleman who moved it. He seemed unable to distinguish between ground rent and rack rent. Under the ordinary ground rent created for the shortest term, say, 80 years—it is usually 99 years—the rent will, generally speaking, be constantly rising while the ground rent will be static, and, therefore, I do not see that the two are at all comparable. Under the principal Act, as I see it, if a house is demolished the tenant recovers compensation through the channels prescribed in the Act but there is nothing in the Bill to compel him at once to rebuild the premises. Therefore, if the Amendment is agreed to, the ground landlord might say, "These premises have been demolished. My ground rent has ceased and I am disinclined to rebuild." Therefore, as far as he is concerned it will be sterile until the expiration of the term. If the Amendment is agreed to it will be necessary, I submit, to draft another Clause of the Bill to compel a person who has been compensated to spend the money in re-establishing the premises.

Mr. Bellenger

The hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) is probably aware that the War Damage Commission have the right to give compensation on certain conditions. I would say that an essential condition should be that the lessee of property which had been bombed, if he receives compensation, should reinstate or give up his lease. What my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) was aiming at was to reduce the rent for a period during which the lessee could not rebuild. During the war he cannot get a licence to rebuild and perhaps after the war he cannot do so, but neither can the ground landlord do so either and, therefore, both will be put in the same position as regards reinstating the hereditament on the site. What my hon. Friend says to the Attorney-General is, "We do not want a system of disclaimer whereby we can, as we know, get remission of ground rent. We want some easier form. We do not want to have to surrender our whole rights in order to get rid of our liability to pay ground rent." I suggest that that is a very fair argument.

Amendment negatived.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, at the end, to insert: and does not exclude a house or part of a house so let by reason only that part of the premises is used as a shop or office or for business, trade or professional purposes. This is to bring within the provisions of the Clause property part of which is recognised as a shop.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 42, leave out "weekly," and insert "short."

In line 43, after "tenant" insert "to the landlord."

In line 44, leave out from "with," to end of line, and insert "his."

In page 3, leave out lines 4 to 12, and insert: ' short tenancy' means any tenancy or subtenancy which the tenant is entitled to determine at any time by a notice expiring not later than the end of the next complete quarter or the next complete period of three months of the tenancy, and, in a case where a person is holding over any land, which he previously held under a short tenancy, by virtue of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939, the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1939 to 1941, or the Liabilities (War-Time Adjustment) Act, 1941, he shall be deemed to be holding the land under a short tenancy." — [The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2. — (Conditional notice of retention.)

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, to leave out from the beginning to "in," in line 30, and to insert: As soon as the War Damage Commission have determined whether the payment under Part I of the War Damage Act, 1941. This is the first of a series of Amendments which do little more than make for correctness in wording. They make it clear that the War Damage Commission should inform tenants of their determination where payment is made as a cost of works payment or as a value payment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 31, after "relates," insert: is to be a payment of cost of works or a value payment.

In line 32, leave out from the beginning, to "their," and insert: serve a notice on the tenant stating.

In line 32, leave out "thereupon," and insert: if the Commission determine to make a value payment.

In line 37, after "which," insert "notice of."

In line 38, leave out "notified," and insert "served ''1'—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out "seven," and to insert "fourteen."

We thought that the period of seven days was rather short and therefore we propose that it should be 14 days.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 13, leave out "seven," and insert "fourteen." — [The Attorney-General]

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, at the end, to insert:

  1. "(4) Where a tenant has served a conditional notice of retention, his obligation under Section ten of the principal Act to render fit the land comprised in the lease shall, pending the notification under Sub-section (2) of this Section of the War Damage Commission's determination with respect to the kind of payment to be made in respect of the war damage to the land, be deemed to be limited to an obligation to take—
    1. (a) such steps as may be necessary from time to time for the purpose of enabling the Commission to make the said determination; and
    2. (b)such steps as are reasonably practicable to limit the extent of the war damage and to secure that, if the Commission determine that the payment is to be a payment of cost of works, the necessary works will be executed without delay;
    • and any question arising under Section ten of the principal Act as to whether there has been unreasonable delay on the part of the tenant in rendering the land fit shall be determined accordingly."
Under this Clause, a man can serve what is called a conditional notice of retention. Under the principal Act, if he served a notice of retention, he undertook to make the premises fit as soon as practicable. Under the conditional notice of retention, that obligation is contingent upon his getting a cost-of-works payment from the War Damage Commission. Therefore, it would be unreasonable if the original obligation were left unmodified, because a person ought not to be called upon actually to do repairs until he gets a decision from the War Damage Commission. On the other hand, it is right that he should be put under an obligation to take such steps as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling the Commission to make a determination, and it is also right that he should be under an obligation to limit the effects of war damage as far as possible by carrying out necessary temporary works without delay. This Amendment places those two obligations upon him, in substitution for the original obligation, until the War Damage Commission make their determination.

Mr. Spens (Ashford)

I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider whether this Clause as it stands is not capable of abuse by a tenant. It appears that a tenant can serve a conditional notice of retention for even the slightest bit of damage and thereby put himself in the position of retaining the premises and paying no rent until the Commission's decision is given, even though a very small expenditure would make the place perfectly fit. I suggest that that is a point worthy of further consideration before we reach the Report stage.

The Attorney-General

I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for raising this matter, which I will look into.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 4, line 30, leave out ".further."

In line 30, after "damage," insert "on a subsequent occasion."

In line 33, leave out "further."

In line 33, after the first "damage," insert "on the subsequent occasion."

In line 33, at the end, insert: and the reference in Sub-section (4) of this Section to the determination of the War Damage Commission shall be construed as including a reference to their determination in respect of the war damage on the subsequent occasion.''— [The Altorney-General.]

Mr. Douglas

I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, at the end, to add: (7) Where a notice of disclaimer bas been served, or is deemed to have been served, by a tenant before the date of the passing of this Act, he may, within three months from that date, serve a conditional notice of retention upon his landlord and such notice shall operate as from the date when he gave notice of dislaimer provided, nevertheless, that the tenant shall indemnify the landlord for any loss sustained by the landlord through acting upon the disclaimer. Provision has been made in this Clause for making certain alterations retrospective. The previous Sub-section contains a provision by which what was originally a notice of retention can be turned into a conditional notice of retention. The object of this Amendment, which is the converse of the last Sub-section, is to enable a person who originally gave a notice of disclaimer to turn it into a notice of retention. There is; a very serious gap in the legislation, because, up to the time when the War Damage Act was passed, it was quite impossible for anybody to know what form the compensation for war damage would take, and it was legitimate for anybody to assume that the payment of compensation would be made to each individual who had suffered damage in proportion to the loss incurred by him. In fact, the Act was framed on a different basis. It is only in cases where there is a so-called total loss that a value payment is made, but it is apportioned among the persons who have an interest in the property.

In other cases, where a cost-of-works payment is made, it is made to the person who actually carries out the repairs. Nobody could have anticipated beforehand that such a position was likely to arise, and it was a legitimate assumption for anybody to make that in this legislation provision would be made for the com? pensation to be paid in every case to the person who had suffered the damage. If one grants that, then people were entitled to assume that the best and wisest course was to give a notice of disclaimer because they would receive compensation for the loss they had suffered. They now find that they are in a different position because of the Act. I suggest it is only equitable that they should be given an opportunity to alter their conditions in accordance with that legislation, subject to the proviso that if the landlord has suffered a loss by reason of having acted upon the notice of disclaimer given to him, he should be compensated. I realise the objections which there are, as a general rule, to retrospective legislation, but the necessity for it has been admitted in the preceding sub-section of the Bill, and I submit that the case with which I am now dealing is equally deserving of consideration and that here the processes of justice are just as much at stake.

The Attorney-General

Whenever Parliament alters the law it may happen that persons have taken steps under the law as it stood which they would not have taken if they had known of the impending change. The broad principle upon which we proceed is that we cannot reopen past transactions. There is some exception made to that in the Bill in that it provides that an absolute notice of retention served under the principal Act can be turned into a conditional notice. To that extent I agree it may be retrospective, but nothing essential will be altered regarding what has happened in the past. Under the notice of retention the tenant retains the lease and ceases to pay rent and is under an obligation to repair when practicable. All that the conditional element brings about is, if, at some future date, the War Damage Commission say they cannot give a cost-of-works payment, then it can be treated as a notice of disclaimer. I recognise that people were in a difficulty in knowing what was the best thing to do before there was any war damage scheme, but I think it would be impracticable now to reopen the matter or set aside acts of disclaimer which may have been done as long as a year ago. I appreciate that my hon. Friend's Amendment contains provision for any loss, but it would be impracticable in its operation.

Mr. Douglas

I admit the difficulties of the matter. I wish to ask the Attorney-General however, whether he is willing to consider, either here or in the further Bill, which no doubt will be introduced very soon, to deal with war damage legislation, the case in which a man has disclaimed his lease, and feels that by that factor he has lost compensation to which he would have been entitled, and which all goes to his ground landlord. I beg the Attorney-General to realise that other people are entitled to consideration in this world besides ground landlords. The whole ten our of his argument to-day on every Amendment has been that the whole of the loss ought to fall upon the sitting occupier whatever happens. Here I have a case, the facts of which he does not deny. He does not deny that these cases have happened and are bound to happen, and I ask him whether he will not accept this remedy, or some other remedy, if this Amendment is impracticable.

The Attorney-General

First, I must repudiate the suggestion that the tenour of every speech I have made has been to put the whole of the loss on the sitting occupier. No single observation I have made could possibly bear that interpretation. Secondly, I would point out that the ground lessee could not have disclaimed under the principal Act except by leave of the court. I said I realised that people might be in difficulty, but I rather doubt from such experience as I have had, that any appreciable number of persons disclaimed valuable leases. The normal disclaimer was by a rack tenant, or some similar tenant, who, naturally, was glad to get out of his obligation. I think the vast majority of the cases in which people have taken advantage of this valuable right of getting rid of their obligations were of that kind. I do not want my hon. Friend to think I am unsympathetic to the reasons which led him to put down his Amendment, but if it is a question of compensation, I think that would be a matter to take up with the Treasury or Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bellenger

I think this is the appropriate moment for the Attorney-General to answer the case I put to him earlier, which was supported by other hon. Members. I suggest to him and to the Committee that Clause q is not the appropriate Clause on which to answer the questions about ground landlords. Clause 9 merely repeals Clauses 13 and 14 of the original Act, which excluded ground leases from the operation of the machinery partly embodied under this Clause. I hope the Attorney-General will reply to the points I have raised. I do not want to go over the ground again, but there are one or two additional facts I should like to mention to the Committee. It is possible that when the new War Damage Bill comes up for consideration the value compensation may be reconsidered. My whole case turns on whether the value of compensation is adequate or not. If it is on a cost-of-works basis, then the lessee would retain and should reinstate the premises at the appropriate moment. In the case of a value payment, I fear, as do many of my hon. Friends, that it would be entirely inadequate. If, as is possible, the value payment may be amended in the next Bill or some future Bill, the whole matter may be left over and the lessee may not be forced to make a decision as to disclaiming his lease, until he knows from the War Damage Commission what type of compensation he is going to receive.

Another point is this. How soon does the Attorney-General think the War Damage Commission will notify the lessee of the type of payment he will receive? If they do not notify him until after the war, it will partly meet my case, because it will give time for reconsideration of the terms of compensation under the value payment. I urge upon the Attorney-General not to dismiss the arguments which have been put before him, just because it is a question of altering a settled state of affairs. I know it is cutting across all the doctrines and principles of common law—the observation of contracts entered into by willing buyers and willing sellers. We are in difficult conditions, and I suggest we must make allowance for that unfortunate class of people who may be heavily penalised by an act of war. I submit that the other class, the ground landlords, will not be so penalised, and that their position may be considerably improved owing to the rising value of their sites—at any rate in the urban areas.

Mr. Pickthorn

I do not wish to make the same speech three times over, and I think I am bound to ask for permission to speak on Clause 9 when the time comes. There are one or two things which defeat me. I do not understand this continual assumption that the ground landlord cannot possibly suffer. I know people, widowed ladies— [Laughter.]. Do not laugh because I have not yet made the joke. The whole argument on the other side has been based on the extreme case —the little man whose little house has been blown away by a big bomb, and so on. I have been a little man with a little house all my life and I do not want to be blown up by a big bomb. That is equally true in the case of the little man or woman who is endowed, perhaps, with nothing except a ground rent, who has the right to receive so much money from a particular site for a given number of years and who has that as a sole resource. I fully understand the argument that all property is wrong, or that some property is right but this sort of property is wrong, but that does not seem to be at all relevant. The right principle, surely, is that put by the Home Secretary the other day that it should be a sacred instiact not to attach property which is exposed to enemy action. If a person lives entirely upon £200 or £300 arising from a ground rent, what will happen if the building is blown up? First of all, the whole of the rent is lost. I do not understand the hon. Member opposite who seemed to be optimistic enough to suppose that some time, to-morrow, next day, next Monday, or at any rate next year, we would all know which of us was to get value payment and which rebuilding payment.

Mr. Bellenger

That is quite clear. The War Damage Committee is functioning. In the case of a totally demolished house it will not take it long to say that it will be a value payment.

Mr. Pickthorn

I hope the hon. Member is right and that it will be done quickly, but I should have thought it very optimistic to be sure that anything except the stuff which is most urgently necessary will be settled until the war is over, and it may be two or three years after the war. Therefore in those cases to which I refer there is the loss for the years of the war, and there may be a loss for some time after the war, before you get your decision and get the rebuilding done. I here is also this loss, that a person in that position cannot deal with what is left to him, because he does not know how long it will be before he is certain whether the lease will be disclaimed or retained. Therefore in most cases a person of this sort would be glad to sell the thing for what was half its value six months ago, or less.

The Deputy-Chairman

This is a very interesting discussion but I should like to ask what it has to do with the Clause.

Mr. Pickthorn

I was. trying to deal with the suggestion that a longer time should be left for the option to be held free for the tenant. I understand the hon. Member's argument is that it should be made longer, and the argument for that request was that, at present, all the loss falls upon the tenant. My argument is designed to show that in some cases the landlord also may be in a position where the loss cannot be borne, and this suggestion of lengthening the epoch of uncertainty, puts an additional burden on the landlord.

The Attorney-General

It is true that the ground lease problem arises to some extent on more than one Clause in the Bill. I will try to confine myself to the extent to which it arises on this Clause. I think in one of our earlier discussions I referred to this Clause as the important one in connection with ground leases, because the provisions in this Clause as to conditional notice of retention are designed to assist the ground lessee, and indeed any lessee who has a valuable lease, and therefore has a substantial interest in the profits. As soon as the War Damage Act took shape it became clear that a ground lessee, if you were to give him, as the Bill proposes, similar rights to those under the principal Act, as a lessee who, under the principal Act could give notice of disclaimer or retetion, was also obviously in a difficulty. He would not want to disclaim because he had a thing of value, though that would be taken into account if there was a value payment, and if there was a cost of works payment he would have parted with the thing of value and got no further benefit from it.

On the other hand he might say, "I do not want to serve a notice of retention simpliciter, because, if a value payment is made, it will not be enough to build up the castle again, and I have not resources to supplement what I get from the State." So we thought it right to put forward this provision for conditional notice of retention. That seems to me a very valuable right for the ground lessee. What is his position under the Bill? If he is near the end of the term and the building anyhow is getting into rather bad condition, he can disclaim, and it may be that that, on the whole, is the best thing for him. On the other hand, if there is any value in the lease he can serve notice to retain, making it conditional, and therefore knowing that he will not be pledging himself to spend money which he may not have, or may not be able to get. If it is a total loss he will get his share of the value payment, that share taking into account the fact that his conditional notice of retention has become a disclaimer, and, if he disclaims, the share of the value payment takes that into account.

I feel it difficult to see what can be done fairer than that. My hon. Friend behind me may say at a later stage that, so far from being hidebound by sanctity of contract and people carrying out their obligations, I have been extremely unfair to the ground landlord. I agree that the ground landlord is in this difficulty compared with other people, that, if he is tied up for a long time and has turned his land into a money interest, and if money decreases in value, as it may well do, it will be a long time before he can, as it were, get his interest revalued in the terms of the then value of money.

Mr. Bellenger

I do not think the learned Attorney-General has fully answered my point, which is that at some time this hard-up person, who is not going to get a valuation payment sufficient to rebuild, or in some cases to repay his mortgage, has to make up his mind to retain or disclaim, and probably he will disclaim, but he will still be bound by his mortgage to pay every penny of what he has borrowed on that hereditament, and I say that' is totally unfair.

Mr. Selley

In cases where a small man disclaims, what is the obligation of the mortgagee, either a building society or a private mortgagee, to the ground landlord? Is the mortgagee under an obligation to keep up the ground rent in order to secure full payment for cost-of-works payment, seeing that the original mortgagor may have disclaimed?

The Attorney-General

If the lessee mortgaged his interests the lessee can, of course, give a conditional notice of retention and that stops the rent running. There is no question of the mortgagee having to pay the ground rent.

Mr. Selley

But surely if the mortgagee is a small occupying owner

The Attorney-General

This does not deal with occupying owners.

Mr. Selley

But if he is the occupying owner he is, in the case of his ground landlord, in the same position as a tenant towards a landlord.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3. £ (Leases comprising separate hereditaments.)

The Attorney-General

I beg to move in page 5, line 2, to leave out "notify," and to insert "serve a notice on."

This Clause deals with cases where the lease applies to several hereditaments. The Amendment is one of a series of Amendments which are dealing with two separate points. Some of them are points really of machinery concerning the serving of notices. Others provide a time table for the actions which may be taken by a tenant under the Clause. I do not think the Committee will want me to go into all the points in detail, but we have drafted a watertight time table for various proceedings which may be necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 5, line 4, after "may," insert within one month of the date on which the notice was served.

In line 18, after "if," insert "notice of."

In line 19, leave out "notified," and insert "served."

In line 22, leave out "seven days," and insert "one month."

In line 22, after "which," insert "notice of."

In line 23, leave out "notified," and insert "served."

In line 35, at the end, add and notice thereof had been served one month after the date on which it was served, or, in a case where an application has been made under Sub-section (1) of this Section, on such later date as the court may fix. — [The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5. — (Obligation to reinstate in case where payment of cost of works is made.)

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, to leave out from "determine," to "under," in line 20, and to insert "that the payment."

With the leave of the Chairman and of the Committee I would ask that this Amendment and three others following may be considered together. The first two Amendments are drafting Amendments, and the third excludes from Subsection (1)the case where there is no obligation under the principal Act, because that is dealt with later.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 6, leave out line 22, and insert: is to be a payment of cost of works, any obligation (whether of the landlord or tenant).

In line 23, leave out from "fit," to "shall," in line 26.

In line 28, leave out "under." — [The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 7, line 9, at the end, to add:

  1. (4) Where the War Damage Commission determine that the payment under Part I of the War Damage Act, 1941, in respect of any-war damage to land comprised in a lease is to be a payment of cost of works, and neither the landlord nor the tenant is under an obligation under the principal Act to render the land fit, the foregoing provisions of this section shall, notwithstanding section one of the principal Act, apply to any obligation to repair under the lease (whether of the landlord or the tenant) which would but for the said section one require him to make good the war damage or the greater part thereof, in like manner as if it were such an obligation to render the land fit; and any question arising under. this subsection in relation to any lease shall, on the application either of the landlord or the tenant, be determined by the court.
  2. (5) Where, by reason of the fact that any land comprised in a lease or any part of such land has been sub-let, two or more persons are under an obligation by virtue of this section to reinstate the land, any landlord or tenant, whether under the lease or under any under lease, may, in default of agreement between all the parties to the lease or any under-lease, apply to the court for a direction as to who is to carry out the said obligation; and the court, after consideration of the terms of the lease and any under-lease and the nature of the interests comprised therein, shall give such a direction, and the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect accordingly, subject to the modification that any application under subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section may be made by any landlord or tenant, whether under the lease or under any underlease, and in the case of an application under subsection (2) it shall be referred to and determined by the court instead of by the War Damage Commission.
  3. (6) Where any person is under an obligation by virtue of this section to reinstate land comprised in a lease and the land sustains war damage on a subsequent occasion before the reinstatement is completed, the foregoing provisions of this section shall, unless they cease to have effect in relation to the lease by reason of the withdrawal of the notice of retention or the notice to avoid disclaimer under section twelve of the principal Act, be suspended in their application to the lease pending the determination by the War Damage Commission with respect to the kind of payment to be made under Part I of the War Damage Act, 1941, in respect of the damage on the subsequent occasion, and—
    1. (a) if the Commission determine that the said payment is not to be a payment of costs of works, the foregoing provisions of this section shall cease to have effect in relation to the lease;
    2. (b) if the Commission determine that the said payment is to be a payment of cost of works, the said provisions shall again apply to the lease as from the date of their determination, and have effect as if the reference to the occurrence of the damage were construed as a reference to the earliest occasion 1440 on which war damage occurred to the land, and the reference to the amount of the payment of cost of works were construed as a reference to the aggregate amount of payments of cost of works made in respect of war damage to the land."
This Amendment proposes to add three new Sub-sections to this Clause. It is a Clause which deals with the obligation to reinstate in cases where a claim of cost of works is made, and it is very important that there should be exact and accurate provisions, in various complicated cases which may arise, for putting that liability on some one. Otherwise the lessors and lessees might disagree and nothing would be done. The first new Sub-section deals with the point where neither the landlord nor the tenant is by reason of anything done under the principal Act liable to make the land fit.

This provides that the person who is under a repairing covenant is liable to reinstate. It will be settled by some notice or other served under the principal Act. The second Sub-section deals with cases which are always cropping up in which there has been a chain of incidents and the obligation to reinstate might fall upon a number of persons who would have rights over against each other. No doubt in most cases the matter would be settled by someone who has the greatest interest in getting the property reinstated coming forward, but we thought it right to say that, if agreement was not reached between all parties concerned, the court should have power to say who should carry out the work. The fast Sub-section deals with another troublesome problem which is always turning up, which is where the property sustains further damage after the War Damage Commission has determined to make a payment.

Mr. Spens

The proposed new Sub-section (4) depends, as I understand it, upon the lease containing an obligation to repair, either on the landlord or on the tenant. There is the exceptional case in which the lease does not contain any such obligation and there should be machinery to deal with it.

The Attorney-General

I will look into the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5. — (Provisions where tenant retains lease and value payment is Made.)

Amendments made:

In page 7, line 13, leave out "notify," and insert "serve a notice on."

In line 16, leave out "notification," and insert "determination." — [The A ttorney-General.]

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 7, line 37, to leave out from "payment," to "shall," in line 39.

This and the following Amendments are really little more than drafting Amendments. They make it clear that all obligations to repair will be discharged when the hypothetical tenant who has given the unconditional notice of retention succeeds in getting the value payment and carries out the work.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 7, line 42, leave out "the obligation of the tenant,"and insert "any obligation under the principal Act."

In line 43, leave out from "be," to the end of line 44, and insert "discharged."— [The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 7, line 44, at the end, to insert: Provided that—

  1. (i) this Sub-section shall not apply to any share of the value payment apportionable to a lease which has determined before the said proposals have been carried out, not being a lease the tenant under which is, by virtue of an unconditional notice of retention, under an obligation to render the land fit;
  2. (ii) the court may, on the application of any tenant under a lease (not being such a lease as aforesaid) derived from the term created by the lease of the tenant who carried out the proposals, direct that the whole or any part of the share of the value payment apportionable to the lease of the applicant shall be paid as mentioned in Section nine of the War Damage Act, 1941, and not in the manner aforesaid."
The Clause as at present drafted excludes the interests of all sub-tenants of the tenant who carries out the proposal and, as a corollary, the share of any such sub-tenant in the value payment is not paid over to the tenant carrying out the proposal. This was a somewhat rough and ready solution and in some cases might even have been unjust. We therefore propose in this Amendment that a tenant may apply to the courts, which may direct that the part of the share of the value payment apportionable to him shall be paid to him instead of to the person undertaking the work.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 8, line 3, leave out from "lease," to "and," in line 4, and insert "comprising the land"

In line 5, leave out from "simple," to the end of line 6, and insert "or of any lease comprising the land."

Leave out lines 7 to 10.

In line 21, after "and," insert "notice of."

In line 23, leave out "notified," and insert "served." — [The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9. — (Application of principal Act to ground leases.)

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 9, line 21, at the end, to add:

  1. "(2) A notice of disclaimer, a notice of retention, or a notice to elect may be served under Section four of the principal Act in respect of war damage to land comprised in a ground lease, whether the damage occurred before or after the passing of this Act.
  2. (3) The following provisions shall apply with respect to notices served before, or proceedings pending at, the passing of this Act: —
    1. (a)a notice of disclaimer, a notice of retention or a notice to elect served before the passing of this Act in relation to any lease shall not be deemed to be of no effect on the ground that the lease is a ground lease, unless the court has so determined before the passing of this Act under Section fourteen of the principal Act, and in that case the determination shall be without pre judice to the serving of a new notice;
    2. (b)where proceedings under Section thirteen or Section fourteen of the principal Act are pending at the passing of this Act they shall be discontinued upon such terms as the court thinks just, and, in the case of proceedings under the said Section fourteen relating to a notice of disclaimer or a notice to elect, the court may extend the period allowed under the principal Act within which a notice to avoid disclaimer may be served by the landlord, or, as the case may be, the notice to elect is to be complied with by the tenant, to such date as the court may fix;
    • but nothing in this Section shall affect any order of the court made before the passing of this Act under Section thirteen of the principal Act."
The first part of this Amendment is to make clear that which we always intended, namely, that the ground lessee, who previously could not serve notice of disclaimer or retention, shall have the advantage of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, in respect of damage done before the Bill becomes an Act. That is to say, it does not only apply to damage done to ground lessee property after the Act becomes law. That is what we always intended, but it was suggested that it might not be clear, so we move this new Sub-section, which makes it quite clear. Sub-section (3) is a series of transitional provisions which deal with the cases where notices of disclaimer or retention have been served before the passing of the Bill and have not been declared by the court to be of no effect. It deals with cases where proceedings under Section 13 or 14 of the principal Act are pending. Where an order of the Court has been made, of course, it is impossible to interfere, but we have made provision, where proceedings are pending, that the court can terminate them on such terms as to costs and so on as seem just. I do not think there is anything controversial about this transitional provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pickthorn

I Beg to move, in page 9, line 21, at the end, to add: (2) Where a ground tenant serves a notice of retention and ceases to pay his ground rent, that ground rent when it revives shall be the sum then corresponding in value to the ground rent on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine; and if the ground landlord and tenant cannot agree what that sum should be the question shall be decided by the court. I will be as quick as I can, but I think there is a point of some importance on which principles ought to be made clear and that I ought to do my best to make them clear. To go back to the beginning, if hon. Members will read the Uthwatt Report, they will see on page 13 of their findings: The lessee is the person to whom the buildings to all intents and purposes belongs. In our view a lessee at a ground rent should, save in exceptional cases, be treated rather as part owner of the property than as the lessee of property belonging to another. Our suggestions, therefore, are directed to apportioning the resulting loss from war damage between the lessor and the lessee. We suggest that the general relief from liability to repair war damage should apply to a lessee at a ground rent with the result that, in the event of destruction by or in consequence of war action, the lessor would be deprived of the enhanced value of the reversion by reason of the existence of the building when the lease falls in. Subject to this one exception we suggest that the lessee should in the normal case continue subject to all his obligations as to rent and otherwise which are incident to his lease. They recommended that lessees should have the right to apply to the court for leave to disclaim. That was the recommendation, and how right was that recommendation was illustrated by the misunderstanding recently between the Attorney-General and an hon. Member. One was speaking of owners, and the other said that the matter did not apply to owners but to landlords and tenants. That indicated how right the Uthwatt Committee was about the distinction between the long lease ground rent and the lease with which this Bill and the principal Act deal.

Mr. Garro Jones

On a point of Order. May I ask whether this Amendment is in order? We on this side have displayed great restraint on this Bill, but this Amendment goes outside the whole principle of the war damage legislation and seeks to introduce into our discussions something which would enable us to discuss the value of the currency at any given date. We could discuss the whole principle of inflation and deflation on every type of war legislation, and I suggest that this is not an Amendment on which to discuss it.

The Deputy-Chairman

That point was considered. It is true that such a discussion could take place on this Amendment. I cannot rule it out of Order. But I trust that the hon. Member will not go deeply into that issue.

Mr. Pickthorn

I do not approach the point which the hon. Member mentioned. The point which I was seeking to make was that the ground landlord was hardly treated by this Bill. I promised to be short, and not to be technical about inflation and so forth. The principal Act carried out those recommendations, mainly by Section 13. There has been no suggestion, I think, in Scotland—and I have made the best inquiries that I can— that anybody could, with any justice, require anything further. The only reason that I have heard suggested for going further is that the War Damage Act gives the landlord something more than he had before, and that the tenant, therefore, should be given something to balance that up. That does not seem to me a good argument, for many reasons. In so far as the landlord gets the advantage of the rebuilding payments, and as his building is more likely to be rebuilt, he loses whatever advantage there is in the chance of re-entering upon his land earlier than he otherwise would have done.

This Debate has in the main been conducted on the basis—in spite of the laughter when I mentioned small holdings just now—of the small man. I cannot see any reason why any person—and there are certainly such persons—whose whole resources arise out of ground rents should not be considered. A small man whose house is hit does not lose his all. Re gains, for instance, in that he ceases to pay rent. [An Hon. Member: "A negative gain."] Yes, but it is some gain. The ground landlord, if this Clause goes through as it stands, loses his rent, and has no negative gain, no gain of that sort at all. I am not in the least wedded to the Amendment which I have put down. I do not say that that is the proper way of doing it. But I think there is a great deal to be said for it. A great deal has been said to-day about the principle of sanctity of contract.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member cannot raise the whole issue of that question on the Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn

I am sorry. I suppose the strictest point on the Amendment is that a person who has entered into a bargain for a given number of pounds over a given period of years has taken a bet that the given number of pounds will not go down in value very fast. That bet has been upset by action of the King's enemies and by legislation. It seems inequitable that all the loss which arises in that way should fall upon one party, who should lose everything because the bomb falls where it does, and should get nothing out of it at all. He loses his rent, he loses the opportunity of dealing with his property, because nobody knows when he is going to re-enter upon it. I suggest that if we are trying to spread the burden, there should not be one party who gets nothing and loses all.

The Attorney-General

I think my hon. Friend feels that, in this general hierarchy of rack tenants and sub-leases, semi-rack tenants, ground leases, ground landlords and so on, the ground landlord is to some extent in a position of special disadvantage if advantage is taken of his rights to retain and to disclaim and so on. The ground lessee is unlikely to disclaim if there is anything left of value in the lease. If he retains, he will retain on the basis that it is conditional on the cost of works. Again, if there is anything in the value of the lease, the Commission will give cost of works because that is the general test.

Mr. Bellenger

Even if the building is demolished?

The Attorney-General

That is the general criterion of any cost of works. Allowing, as I do, that there is some force in that, if the tenant retains, he, of course, has his 80 or 90 years, and it might be much longer in his case before he could get the advantage of any appreciation in land values. That is why we moved this Clause. I know what my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) thinks about Clause 9. He thinks it to be right. He indicated that fact very forcibly to me one day at Question time. I believe that it is right, and I certainly believe that it would be quite incompatible if you had an Amendment on the lines of that which is on the Paper. To say that one particular person who suffered financial damage is to have his contract safeguarded, having regard to the changed value of money, would, I suggest, be quite incompatible. I realise that my hon. Friend will not be satisfied. He sees an injustice here, but I do not think that there is an injustice. There is hardship, and this is the fair way of dealing with the position.

Mr. Bellenger

I want to say by way of postscript that the hon. Member and I are miles apart in our understanding of the position of ground landlord and ground lessee. Whatever happens to the widow who has £200 or £300 a year coming in from ground rents, who suddenly loses that income because of the operation of the war, nothing can take her land away from her. She has that capital left, but the man who happens not to have invested his money in ground rents, but to have put it into his home, is absolutely on the rocks when the assess- ment of his position is made and he has not even the bit of land to fall back upon. That is my answer to the hon. Member.

Mr. Spens

I am bound to say that on this subject I am many miles away from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). I hope that this is not to be the last word about this matter. So much depends upon what happens in the future. What the War Commission does will make a very great difference, and I am absolutely certain, as my right hon. and learned Friend realises, that some extremely hard cases are bound to arise in the distribution of this burden. Many of us feel that perhaps there has been an undue bias in favour of those who are in the happy position of owning these leases. The ground lessee is very much nearer the owner than the ordinary rack rent lessee. I feel that ground lessees should have been dealt with as if they were part owners of the property. At present I think the ground lessee has been put into the position in which he is a great deal more part owner than the landlord, and one knows how few are the ground landlords in this country whose land, which will always remain, is not mortgaged and charged. That process is going on rapidly every day of the week. To think that the ground landlord, who is now to be deprived of the ground rent, will be in a happy position is a complete fallacy as the facts are at the present time. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. and learned Friend will keep his mind open and see how this Clause acts in the future. It may be necessary in the future not to deal with the situation on the lines proposed in the Amendment, but to give the ground landlord some assistance in dealing with the difficulties which, I am absolutely certain, exist at the present time.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10. — (Relief from obligation to insure against war damage.)

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 9, line 26, at the end, to insert: and any proceedings pending at the passing of this Act relating to any such obligation to insure land against war damage shall be discontinued upon such terms as the court thinks just. This is one of a series of Amendments intended to remove certain doubts as to the operation of this Clause. I do not think it raises any point of principle.

Mr. Garro Jones

There is one point of principle which I think might be elucidated, and that is with regard to the position of those insurance companies which purported to insure against war damage and have collected a considerable number of premiums. They are to be relieved from their obligations without any obligation, apparently, to return the premiums. Has that been thought of, and what is the proposal of the Government?

The Attorney-General

I will certainly look into that, but I understood that the problem was not that of an insurance company purporting to insure against war damage but contracts entered into between mortgagor and mortgagee, and possibly landlord and tenant, at the time that this insurance was possible, and then when insurance companies would not take war insurance the mortgagor and mortgagee were able to say, "You have broken your covenant because you did undertake absolute liability." If there is any question of relief to insurance companies, I will look into it, but I do not think that is the position.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 9, line 27, leave out "nothing in this section shall," and insert "the foregoing provision shall not."

In line 27, leave out "anything lawfully done," and insert "the exercise."

In line 28, after "Act," insert "of any right or remedy arising."

In line 29, at the end, add: but the court may, on the application of any person prejudiced by the exercise of any such right or remedy, grant such relief as it thinks just.''— [The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11. — (Powers of entry of landlord and tenant of damaged land.)

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, after "any," to insert "building or works on."

This Amendment and the other Amendments in my name to this Clause are designed to deal with the problem of a house which has been damaged, where the tenant has- gone, the house is locked up, and no one can enter it, whereas it is vitally important that somebody should get: in to do temporary repairs and prevent further damage. As originally drafted, the provision dealt with that point, and these Amendments extend the provision so as to make it apply not only to the landlord but to any other person interested, and to make it clear that in the last resort, if urgent repairs are required and the tenant or occupier cannot be got at, forcible entry may be made. There must be many cases in London, for instance, after a bad blitz, where it is vital that there should be immediate entry to premises.

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, South)

I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether the wording of his Amendment will cover the point which I intended to cover in the Amendment which I have on the Order Paper— in line 30, to leave out "a lease," and to insert "any tenancy." It seems to me that the word "lease" is restrictive, but it may be that the proper interpretation of that word covers the point.

The Attorney-General

I have looked into that matter and the definition docs cover the point which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 9, line 30, after "is," insert "or are."

In line 31, leave out from "damage," to the end of line 34, and insert: and urgent repairs to the building or works arc necessary to prevent deterioration and arc not being executed, any person who has the fee simple in the land or a lease of the land or is a mortgagee of the fee simple or a lease, or any person authorised by any such person as aforesaid may, if he cannot obtain permission to enter upon the building or works from the person having control thereof, or cannot obtain such permission without unreasonable delay, enter upon the building or works for the purpose of executing the necessary repairs, and may use such force as is reasonably necessary for effecting entry." — [The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13. — (Interpretation.)

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, at the end, to insert:

  1. " (3) It is hereby declared for the removal of doubt that the expression ' landlord,' as defined by section twenty-four of the principal Act includes, in relation to any lease, a mortgagee of the lessor's interest who is in possession of that interest or has appointed a receiver of the rents and profits thereof.
  2. (4) In sub-section (2) of section ten of the principal Act (which defines the expression ' rent '), for the words 'any periodical sum payable by the tenant in connection with the occupation of the land comprised in the lease ' there shall be substituted the words ' any periodical sum payable by the tenant to the landlord in connection with his tenancy,' and the references to the definition of the said expression in sections eleven and twelve of the principal Act shall be construed accordingly."
This Amendment, which is in two parts, makes it clear, first of all, that the definition of landlord includes the mortgagee in possession. The second part of the Amendment makes some amendments which have already been explained.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE. — (Notification by War Damage Commission of determinations, etc)

  1. (1)As soon as the War Damage Commis—sion have determined what kind of payment (if any) is to be made under Part I of the War Damage Act, 1941, in respect of any war damage to land comprised in a lease, they shall, if the landlord or tenant of the land has made a request in writing to be notified thereof and they are not required to notify him under Section two of this Act, serve a notice on him of their determination.
  2. (2)Any copy of a notice required under this Act to be served on the War Damage Com mission, and any request in writing made to the Commission under the last foregoing Sub section, may be served or made by delivering it to an officer of the Commission at any office of the Commission, or by sending it in a pre paid registered letter addressed to the Com mission at any office of the Commission. — [The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause incorporates the usual procedure where a landlord or tenant re- quests that he shall be not notified of the determination of the War Damage Commission.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE (Determination of disputes as to whether premises have been rendered fit.)

Where, —

  1. (a) the land comprised in any lease has been rendered unfit by war damage and a notice of retention or a notice to avoid disclaimer has been served in respect of the lease; and
  2. (b) repairs have been carried out to the land;

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause enables either the landlord or the tenant to' apply to the court to determine whether the land has been rendered fit, and if so, the date on which it was rendered fit. If this provision were not inserted and the rent was over the county court limit, there might be some difficulty.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE. — (Provision as to Northern Ireland.)

The power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, conferred by Section twenty-five of the principal Act and extended by this Act, to make laws for purposes similar to the purposes of the principal Act and this Act, shall include power to make the like provision with respect to the War Damage Commission and the like' modification of certain provisions of the War Damage Act, 1941, as is made by this Act. — [The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The object of this Clause is to enable the Parliament of Northern Ireland to deal with the matters contained in Clauses 2 to 8 in the Bill, which are themselves amendments of the War Damage Act. The Parliament of Northern Ireland cannot normally, without an express power, amend an Act of the House applying to Northern Ireland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE— (Provision in case where land sustains damage other than war damage.)

  1. (1) Where—
    1. (a) any land comprised in a lease has been reinstated or redeveloped under this Act, or has otherwise been rendered fit in pursuance of an obligation imposed under the principal Act;
    2. (b) the cost of reinstatement, of redevelopment or of rendering the land fit has been increased by reason of any damage or dilapidation occurring to the land, not being war damage or ordinary wear and tear; and
    3. (c) the person by whom the land was reinstated, redeveloped or rendered -fit would have been entitled, but for Section one of the principal Act, to require any person, being his landlord or tenant under any lease comprising the land, to make good the said damage or dilapidation or any part thereof, or to indemnify him in respect of the cst of making good the said damage or dilapidation or any part thereof;
    • the first-mentioned person shall be entitled to recover from his said landlord or tenant the amount by which the said cost has been so increased, or, as the case may be, such part of the said increase as is attributable to the said part of the damage or dilapidation.
  2. (2)Any person from whom any sum has been recovered under this Section shall have the like right (if any) to recover that sum or any part thereof from any person, being his landlord or tenant under any lease comprising the land, as if he himself had reinstated, re developed or rendered fit the land.
  3. (3)Nothing in this Section shall be taken to affect any right, whether under the Prevention of Fire (Metropolis) Act, 1776, or otherwise, in respect of money payable under a policy of insurance in respect of any such damage or dilapidation as aforesaid, or any right to damages for a failure to insure land in respect thereof, but any amount recovered by any person, or made available for the re instatement redevelopment or rendering fit of the land by any person, by virtue of any such right, shall be deducted from the amount recoverable by that person under this Section in respect of that damage or dilapidation. — [The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The point with which this Clause deals is a little troublesome, but we have to deal with it. Let us take the case where a house is damaged by a bomb. The man then serves a notice of retention, and makes himself liable to do the repairs. He makes himself liable to make the house fit, and not simply to repair the damage which the bomb has done. If, after this has happened, a normal civil fire takes place, that increases the damage, and the premises have then been damaged by two causes, the bomb and the fire, and the man has to reinstate the property. The Clause seeks to deal with this problem in the following way. By Sub-section (3), if it is a question of a fire and there is a fire policy, nothing in the Clause prevents the general law from operating, under which a man who repairs fire damage can get the appropriate sum from the insurance company. I think the principle is right that a man should be able to have these rights in respect of normal damage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time; and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE. — (Suspension of rent in case of war damage.)

If and so long as any land is unfit by reason of war damage, no rent shall be payable under any tenancy affecting that land:

Provided that if part of any such land is capable of beneficial occupation there shall be payable under any such tenancy such rent as may be agreed between landlord and tenant; or, in default of agreement, as may be fixed by the court. — [Mr. Douglas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Douglas

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I do not know whether the Attorney-General would like to shorten the proceedings by accepting this Clause. If he did so, it would simplify matters very much. As we have already discussed this matter, and in order to let this stage of the Bill be completed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed [Bill 43]