§
Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 28, after "and" insert:
(without prejudice to the liability of any person in respect of any other damage or dilapidations)
§ 6.8 p.m.
§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant)I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment. These words were inserted in the English provisions, and this Amendment is merely to bring the Scottish provisions into line with those and to make sure that there is clarity, if that is possible, in the law as it will be after the Bill is passed.
§ Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to indicate that the proposed Lords Amendment is already incorporated in the English provisions and that this is merely a matter of bringing the Scottish provisions into line with the English provisions. Nevertheless, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the opportunity precisely to explain why, apart from a desire to be on a par with England, it is necessary for this provision to be included?
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandI am sorry. I was trying to save time, but I do not seem to have been very successful. The reason for the original Amendment in the English Clause was that we intended to make clear that liability for damages and dilapidations which had occurred before the Measure applied to the premises concerned should be governed by the tenancy agreement at that time. As it happened, in the English Clause that provision was made. We are merely making the same provision in subsection (5), to ensure that when dilapidations and damages have occurred before the Measure applies they shall be governed by the tenancy agreement in force at that time, and not by the provisions of this Measure.
I hope that I have met the hon. Member's point. I am sorry that I did not 1228 make it clearer, but I was merely trying to save time.
§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)This is the point that I was making. The Solicitor-General has made quite clear what he has in mind, but he has not justified the need for the insertion of this parenthetical phrase. He seems to think that there is some doubt what the subsection means at present, and that these words will clarify it. Statutes are already sufficiently vague and loaded with words. If we are going to go out of our way at this late stage to put in more, there should surely be a specific purpose in so doing. I understood the Solicitor-General to tell us that he was doing this because some doubt might arise as to the responsibility for damage and dilapidation which took place prior to this temporary tenancy.
I ask him to read the subsection. It says:
the occupier shall be treated as exclusively responsible for all internal decorative repairs, and the owner as exclusively responsible for all other repairs, being in each case repairs required to make good damage or dilapidations occurring during the application of this Act to the dwelling-house.Where on earth is there any obscurity or vagueness which means that we have to put in this additional sentence(without prejudice to the liability of any person in respect of any other damage or dilapidations)"?Why should the Solicitor-General of Scotland, whether or not advised by the Lord Advocate, suggest that we must put in these words because they are in the English subsection and because the position is not clear? The position in Scotland is quite clear. There is no dubiety about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have asserted himself on a matter of principle like this and should have said that we do not want all this legal verbiage—unless he is looking after the interests of his own fraternity.
§ 6.15 p.m.
Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. and learned Gentleman can speak only once, unless he asks leave of the House.
§ Mr. RossI was giving way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, Mr. Speaker, because I thought that he had something of importance to say.
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandI was not sure whether I was rising by leave of the House or by way of an intervention in the hon. Member's speech, Mr. Speaker, but I want to make it quite clear that these words were inserted not for the benefit of lawyers but for the opposite reason. I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that the subsection as drafted is reasonably clear, but as he has pointed out on many occasions, if we can make a thing clearer, let us do so. That is what we are trying to do now.
§ Mr. RossThat is the point I was making. The Solicitor-General says that he has been trying to clarify the matter, but he has not. If the situation is perfectly clear he does not require any additional words. If he puts them in people will think that they must have some meaning, and all sorts of obscure meanings will be read into them. The Solicitor-General intervened to say that he agreed that the matter was perfectly clear, and by doing so he has given away his whole case.
Why on earth has the Scottish Office allowed this thing to be done? It is no great credit to the legal department of the Scottish Office that it should have had these words foisted upon it, probably by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, asserting once more his strange and mysterious influence on the Scottish Housing Department. I do not think that the subsection needs these words. They do not add to the clarity of the Clause.
§ Question put and agreed to.