DEFECTIVE PREMISES BILL (Hansard, 11 February 1972)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

May I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friends for allowing me time to move my bill. It was Karel Capek in Prague in 1911 who once founded a political party which he called the party for orderly progress and moderate social reform within the framework of the existing constitution. If there ever was a Bill which could properly have been introduced by that party and its founder, it is this one. It is a modest, sensible and moderate piece of social legislation which I sincerely trust the Government will be in a position to accept. It implements three of the four recommendations of the Law Commission Report No. 40.

Clause 2 contains exemptions from the provisions of Clause 1. The main provisions are those set out in Clauses 1, 3 and 4. Clause 1 is probably the most 1822 important and imposes a statutory duty upon all those who undertake any work in connection with the provision of dwellings. It imposes an obligation upon them to do their work properly and to use proper materials so that in the end the dwelling will be fit for human habitation. At common law a term is implied in a building contract very much to this effect but the great distinction between this obligation and the one in the contract is that the contractual one can be expressly excluded whereas the statutory one cannot.

Clause 1 also extends the law in two important respects. First it would enable the purchaser of property to sue a subcontractor or a professional man who has been involved in the building or the supplier of specific materials if for some reason he cannot obtain satisfaction from the builder. Secondly it gives a right of action, and this is an innovation, to a subsequent owner of the building who was not a party to any contract with the builder or sub-contractor. This is an innovatory provision and could be a valuable additional safeguard for those purchasing property.

There is one exemption from the provisions of Clause 1 and that is the scheme set out in Clause 2. That provides for an exception from Clause 1 in cases to which an approved scheme applies. The one that is in contemplation is that of the N.H.B.R.C. 10-year protection scheme which the Law Commission Report discussed extensively. The Law Commission said of it: It is apparent that the benefits of such a scheme must exceed those which can be derived from any change in the law affecting the contractual rights between vendor and purchaser. Without going into great detail, the effect of this exemption would be that either the obligation in Clause 1 would apply or an equivalent obligation would apply in the approved schemes which have been exempted by the provisions of Clause 2.

Clause 3 removes a well-known and rather absurd anomaly whereby a builder who builds on his own land and then sells the completed building ceases to be under any common law liability for negligence, whereas the builder who builds by contract on someone else's land bears the same liability for negligence as other people such as manufacturers of chattels, 1823 repairers and so on. It may be that some cases, particularly a recent one in the Court of Appeal have cast doubt upon the validity of the old distinction which common law made. This is a worth while clearing-up of an anomaly and that is what the Clause does.

Clause 4 rationalises and slightly extends the liability of a landlord who has an obligation or right to repair premises which he has let to another. It removes certain doubts and anomalies which have grown up in the common law and establishes clearly that, so far as a landlord has an obligation or right to repair the premises, he is under a duty of care to those who are likely to suffer injury or damage if the premises are not maintained properly. The Law Commission thought that it would be a valuable provision. I agree and I hope that the House will agree also.

Clause 5 makes the provisions binding on the Crown to the same extent in relation to tort as the Crown is normally so liable. Clause 6 contains definitions and subsection (2) makes it impossible for the duties referred to in the Bill to be avoided or excluded by contract. Clause 7 provides for the Bill to come into force on 1st January, 1974, which will give time for its provisions to be known and, in particular, for insurers to review and adjust their insurance policies.

I said that there was one major omission. Hon. Members who have read the Law Commission Report will know of the recommendation as to liability for defects which are known to a vendor or lessor of property at the time of sale or letting. This recommendation attracted a certain amount of controversy. For a number of reasons, the most important for a practical politican being the need to get at least three of the Commission's recommendations on the Statute Book and not to press the fourth, that recommendation is omitted from the Bill.

It would, of course, be open to any hon. Member who thought it right to move an Amendment in Committee to include that recommendation in the Bill. If that were to happen, I am sure that 1824 the matter could be argued out at that stage.

Time is very short for this debate and I therefore conclude by merely saying that in three important and significant respects the Bill, modest though it is, contains three of the four recommendations of the Law Commission, that it will assist those who purchase houses and that it will extend the basic liabilities in what I believe is the right direction.

I gather that the Bill is not a total surprise to the Government and although the Solicitor-General has perhaps only 30 seconds in which to comment on it, I trust he will give it his blessing. With those remarks, I commend the Bill to the House.