LORDS AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 23 December 1920)

§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAM
Your Lordships will excuse me if I proceed leisurely because it is difficult to follow the Paper which has come into our hands, and there are numerous misprints in it. The next Amendment is in the wrong place. It is the Amendment shown on the Paper at the bottom of page 3—that is Clause 8, and not Clause 10, page 12, line 24, at the end insert the paragraph (f). That was the Amendment made by your Lordships, and the Commons propose to amend this by inserting, after "notice" in line 1, the word "unreasonably," and, after 907 "execute" in line 4, the words "at the expense of the landlord." With those alterations the Commons are prepared to agree to the Amendment. The insertion of the word "unreasonably" does not appear to affect the object which Lord Clinton had in view, and it was held by the Commons that if the landlord wishes for a written agreement he ought to pay for the cost of preparing it. It is hoped that your Lordships will see no objection to this, and I move that this House does agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I am sure your Lordships will forgive me if we do not follow very easily, because, as your Lordships have been informed by the Minister, this Amendment is printed in the wrong place in the Paper in our hands. I observe that the Commons propose to amend our Amendment. So far as the word "unreasonably" is concerned, I cannot say that I could call that in question, but I confess I rather shrink from the words "at the expense of the landlord," unless the noble Lord can explain to us a little more what the effect was. Your Lordships' Amendment said— had at the date of the notice refused, or within a reasonable time failed, to comply with a demand made to him in writing by the landlord requiring him to execute an agreement setting out the existing terms of the tenancy. And the Commons propose that that operation should be carried out at the expense of the landlord. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain the effect of that.

§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAM
This is the case of a tenant who has been a tenant possibly for some long time on certain understood conditions and the landlord calls upon him to execute a formal agreement setting out the terms of the tenancy. It is initiated at the request of the landlord, and the Commons have suggested that in such circumstances the expense of drawing up the agreement shall be borne by the landlord who makes the proposal.

§ VISCOUNT CHAPLIN
Is it not the fact that the tenant must have had an agreement if it had been executed? He must have signed it at some time or other 908 and must have it in his possession, or ought to have it.

§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAM
I think there are cases in some pActs of the country where agreements have never been made.

§ VISCOUNT CHAPLIN
It is the custom of the county of course; but I think it is a question for arbitration if there is no agreement.

§ LORD LAMINGTON
How would it apply to an ordinary lease? Would they not share the expenses of drawing up a lease?

§ LORD LEE OF FAREHAM
It does not apply to leases. There is nothing on paper in this case.

§ LORD CLINTON
My Amendment was merely to provide for cases where, perhaps, owing to the passing of this Act leases would be necessary and where they have not hitherto been executed. There was a danger, perhaps, that some tenants would refuse to sign them in consequence of the provisions of this Act and it was thought well to put in these words. The only point under discussion is whether the landlord should pay the cost himself or whether he should do what is ordinarily the case—charge half the cost to the tenant. I really do not see why they should not pay half and half, but it is not a matter of any great importance.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
We agree.