HL Deb 28 June 1956 vol 198 cc145-61

4.7 p.m.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 2:

Modifications of liabilities and rights of innkeepers as such.

2.—

(2) Without prejudice to any other liability or right of his with respect thereto, the proprietor of an hotel shall not as an innkeeper be liable to make good to any guest of his any loss of or damage to, or have any lien on, any vehicle, or any horse or other live animal or its harness or other equipment.

(3) Where the proprietor of an hotel i liable as an innkeeper to make good the loss of or any damage to property brought to the hotel, his liability to any one guest shall not exceed fifty pounds in respect of any one article, or one hundred pounds in the aggregate, except where— (a) the property was stolen, lost or damaged through the default, neglect or wilful act of the proprietor or some servant of his; or Provided that the proprietor shall not be entitled to the protection of this subsection unless, at the time when the property in question was brought to the hotel, a copy of the notice set out in the Schedule to this Act printed in plain type was conspicuously displayed in a place where it could conveniently be read by his guests at or near the reception office or desk or, where there is no reception office or desk, at or near the main entrance to the hotel.

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), after "vehicle" to insert: "or any property left therein". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that, this Amendment will please the hotel proprietors, if it does not please the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. Under Clause 2 (2) as it stands the proprietor of an hotel is not to be liable as an innkeeper to any guest in respect of loss or damage to a vehicle. He may or may not be liable under other provisions, but he is not liable as an innkeeper. As the clause stands—and I am sure that this was an oversight—it does not apply to goods that: are in vehicles. Therefore, an hotel proprietor might be held to be liable as an innkeeper in respect of damage to or loss of goods which are inside a vehicle. As a matter of tidiness and fairness, it is better that the words proposed in the Amendment should be included, so as to make it clear that he is not liable for any property left therein. I admit that this proposal has its counterpart. The hotel proprietor will then have no lien. But the exercise of a lien is a rare thing—indeed, I do not know in what circumstances it could arise. I am sure that the hotel proprietor will have the advantage by the addition of tits Amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will appreciate the generosity of my moving this Amendment, particularly when we come to the next one, in which I am asking that a further advantage should be given to the guest at art hotel. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 16. after ("vehicle") insert ("or any property left therein").—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested that this Amendment might not please me, but I am happy to say that he is incorrect. I have no objection whatsoever to this Amendment. Those noble Lords who attended on Committee stage will remember that this was one Amendment which I was going to accept, but the noble Lord forestalled me by not moving it. I agree with the noble Lord that it, is quite illogical that any distinction should be drawn at this point between the vehicle and the property left in it. If the owner of the property does not like that situation, he can deposit the property with the innkeeper. That, undoubtedly, is his proper course. I entirely agree that this Amendment removes an unnecessary distinction; it tidies up the Bill and it is quite acceptable. Therefore, I have no hesitation in accepting it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (3), to substitute "two" for "one" [hundred pounds]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I just clear up one small misunderstanding. I did not mean to say that I thought the noble Lord would not accept the Amendment; I meant to say—and I thought I did—that I thought he would accept it. I hope that he will accept this Amendment, too. We had a discussion on this matter on the Committee stage it went to a Division and, on a narrow margin, the Committee agreed with the clause as it stands. I feel that the House ought to reconsider this point. This is the provision which limits to £100 the liability of an innkeeper in respect of the contents of a case of a guest which may be lost or damaged in circumstances where he is not guilty of any negligence. The view of those who supported the amendment in Committee was that in present-day conditions £100 was a wholly inadequate sum. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, in a "last fling," put forward the argument that if £30 was reasonable as a limit immediately bfore the war, then £100 was not an unreasonable limit at the present time. But the fact is that this limit of £30 was fixed in 1863, under the Innkeepers' Liability Act, and it was regarded at that date as a reasonable figure. I ask the House to think again. If the £30 limit was reasonable in 1863. I am astonished at my own moderation in asking, the House now to put the limit at £200.

What are we asking in this Amendment? We are asking that the maximum liability of an innkeeper in regard to lost or damaged luggage of a guest who goes to his hotel—it may be lost or damaged through no fault of the innkeeper but it may be through his fault, although negligence cannot be established and it is difficult for a guest to establish negligence on the part of an innkeeper—should be £200. I submit that that is not unreasonable. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that I put forward on the Committee stage. I am prepared to take the value of the contents of an ordinary week-end case, although in many in! stances a guest might go to an hotel for more than a week-end. I think that any noble Lord, putting a modest figure on the contents of such a case, would find that certainly £100 would not cover it; and, generally speaking, £200 would not cover it.

I hope the House will think again and agree to this modest Amendment to raise the liability of the innkeeper to a maximum of £200. After all, he can, and does, insure; and to him the extra liability from insurance cannot be great. But to the guest who wants to insure against these contingencies—and I want to stress this fact—the premium is somewhat high. It may interest your Lordships to know that the kind of insurance that one takes out for this sort of thing is an all-risks policy, and a good many insurance companies—indeed, I think, virtually all of them—would want a premium of the order of £1 per cent. That is quite substantial. So far as the innkeeper is concerned, it would not be anything like that. I feel that this is an Amendment that might well be accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 21, leave out the second ("one") and insert ("two").—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, I feel that I must oppose this Amendment. I do not propose to argue it at length, because it was fully dealt with on the Committee stage. The figure in the old Act was £30, and it has now been more than trebled and put at £100. I feel that that is quite adequate. I feel that for the ordinary guest who is staying one night in an hotel (I am afraid that here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin), £100 should cover the value of his luggage. The noble Lord mentioned insurance by the innkeeper. Surely, if we are going for a holiday and taking a great amount of money, or some valuable, it is prudent to insure ourselves and our baggage. The guest has every opportunity of putting valuable items of jewellery and such things in the safe deposit, and I feel that the hotel proprietor ought not to be put to a greater liability than the £100 at present in the Bill.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Gifford in his resistance to this Amendment I do not intend to go through all the points that have been raised, but I should just like to put this point in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about the date of the £30. The £100 was suggested by the Law Reform Committee who were fully aware of the original date of the £30. As recently as 1954, with all the facts before them, and after due consideration, they came to the conclusion that the proper figure to-day was £100. I cannot see why your Lordships should be asked to alter the view of that Committee.

LORD REA

My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment, again without going through all the details. There seems to be a great cleavage of opinion about what one's suitcase and its contents are worth. Surely, it matters very much whether one is going away for a night or for a month or two. I feel that your Lordships, calculating on Lord Silkin's basis, and adding up the costs of suits, clothes, hair brushes and the case itself, would agree that the increase from £30 to £100, far from being adequate is really most inadequate. The noble Lord has taken the point I wished to make about insurance: no wise innkeeper would carry this risk himself but would naturally insure himself. I am told that the increase of his liability from £100 to £200 would mean an almost infinitesimal increase in the premium demanded. As for Lord Gifford's excellent sponsoring of insurance companies, I never insure my luggage when I travel. I beg to support the Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I am bound to say that there is a great deal in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. One of the difficulties, of course, is the question of keys. Innkeepers have great difficulty in getting back their keys from their guests The whole thing ought to be better organised, because the real trouble, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, is the stealing of one's luggage from one's room by somebody who has access to the hotel. Anybody who has stayed in an American hotel knows what a terrific hubbub there is immediately anybody reports that his room has been entered. In these very big hotels they are on to it like a shot as soon as there is any suspicion, and if they catch a fellow with a hotel key. I think it is an important point, because a guest may easily lose at least £200 if his luggage is stolen from an hotel.

4.22 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

My Lords, from the way the debate went on a previous stage, and the way it has gone to-day, I was hoping that the decision on this apparently small matter was not going to be treated as a Party issue. This is a Private Member's Bill which deals with a point of substance affecting all Parties. I hope, therefore, that we shall not vote on this Amendment from the point of view of whether it affects the Government or not—I do not think it does—but that we shall try to vote upon the facts. I am not greatly concerned over what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said about the Law Reform Committee's view upon what the increased liability should be, because, if I may put it this way, we have not yet reached a firm basis in our price schedules.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was anxious to save your Lordships' time, and not to have a kind of analysis of the contents of ordinary hotel resident's luggage. But I think everybody knows quite well that the progressive increase of prices in the last ten or eleven years has been such that, if you take your wife away for one week and you analyse the contents of your suitcases, the value is nearer £200 than £100—leaving out altogether articles of value, which it might well be suggested by a hotel proprietor should be deposited in a safe place. You may have a couple of suits, and maybe to dress at night; and you may have a wife who is almost certain to want not only what she arrives wearing, bat three changes. If to the value of these items you add the total cost of the ordinary stuff that anybody wants to deposit in a safe place (the hotel provides special wardrobes and things of that, kind to be there at the service and for the general use and pleasure of the visitors they invite) I think your Lordships will agree that we are not asking too much in suggesting that the hotel keeper's liability should be brought into line with the economic facts of the present time.

It is perhaps of pertinence to say, to your Lordships that when some of us discussed this figure in private before we came, we thought that £200 was not enough. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has indicated that we have come to a lower figure and are now agreed upon this figure of £200. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will be prepared to meet us on the matter. If he is not, then I hope your Lordships will vote upon the facts and not upon any idea that it would not be quite correct to support the Amendment because it happens to be moved from this side of the House.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, may I underline what the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said with regard to its not being a Party issue? I am fortified in that by my memory, which I think is correct, that in another place an Amendment was moved from the Labour Benches to reduce the figure from £100 to £30, as it is at present. Therefore, one can understand that there is no firm Party line on this point. But my feat of memory in remembering that brings out what is, I think, the important aspect of this matter.

Here we are trying to strike a balance, and a fair balance, between the interest of the guests and of the proprietor. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, took me to task in a kindly way for saying on the last occasion that the relevant time was before the war, and he pointed out that the provision for the £30 came into a Bill in 1863. But I do not think my point was an unfair one, because, so far as I know, there was no suggestion in the years before the war that this figure should be increased, and I should have thought that a 3⅓ times increase of a figure which was accepted at that time was a fair and, indeed, rather a generous estimate of the increase in the price of clothes. I am glad to say that mine are not quite that, although I would not say that they are far off the increase of 3⅓ times. However, they are not as much as that at the present day.

With regard to the general position, I think it is fair to make a distinction between the guest who is going to make a short stay, and the guest who is going to make a long stay. After all, this is strict liability. One need not prove negligence. Property may have gone by reason of the action of an extremely clever hotel thief that the proprietor could have done, nothing to prevent, and he still has to pay this amount just because the loss takes place. That is a strict liability, and again I think it is fair to remember that that was imposed, by what I think is the wisdom of the Common Law, to meet the case of the traveller who arrives at a place for the night and has no other place to go except the local inn; he was driven to go to that place. Then the Common Law placed that strict liability that, however careful the innkeeper was, if the property went he had to pay for it. That is the liability we are looking at to-day.

I believe that broadly it does meet the case of the guest who goes for a short time. After all, I should think most of us who go for a short stay take a dinner jacket and a change of clothes. That, with the clothes we have on—I speak for myself at any rate; I do not know how many of your Lordships are in a condition more approaching Beau Brummel, but I am sure many of you are, so I can speak only for myself—is well covered. I remind noble Lords of this: that, assuming one has to claim, one does not get replacement value for the loss; one gets the actual value. A Member of your Lordships' House once said, "I have a new suit for every day of the week, and this is it." If that suit has been worn for some time, you have to allow for depreciation and years of wear and you cannot have the replacement value as being the sum the innkeeper would pay, any more than it is the sum your insurance company would pay Therefore, on consideration, I think that the position is reasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made a fair point that if one is going to make a long stay at an hotel, one could take out an insurance for that period.

This Bill is useful in itself because it clarifies and modernises the law on a difficult subject. It is also a good thing because, as I have put to your Lordships, the Law Reform Committee is a collection of distinguished people who are doing valuable work. It is important that we should try to translate their work into legislation. I do not mean for a moment —and I hope that the noble Viscount. Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will not misunderstand me—that we should take the ipse dixit of the Law Reform Committee there; but what is important is that we should not lose the opportunity of giving effect to their recommendations in this Bill. It is not a question of the position of this House or another place; it is a question of trying to hold what the majority of people think is a fair balance between the two interests affected, the guest and the innkeeper. I feel that if, in this matter, we change the figure, we are jeopardising that balance and the chance of a very useful Bill. For that reason, I hope that the change will not be pressed on this occasion.

4.33 p.m.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I must confess that my sympathies tend to lie with the noble Lord who raised the Amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, if you go away you never, or hardly ever, insure your baggage. If you go to an hotel, you assume its honesty. Should one find that the contents of one's case or cases were, in fact, removed, and should the contents of one's case or cases amount to the sum of £200, one would justly feel most perturbed to find that one could claim only £100. As to the hotel keeper being liable for the extra £100, to bring it up to £200, I agree that that would be a rare occurrence. Where that is necessary, however, one would feel very upset to find that one could claim only £100.

LORD SILKIN

I believe I have the right of reply, have I not?

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say a few words? It is not my intention to repeat what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount, but may I, first of all, mention one point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. He spoke of a man and his wife going to an inn. I want to point out to the House that the total amount then would be £200, because it is £100 for any one guest. So that, if a man and his wife go to an inn, the figure is £200. Secondly, I thought the House might like to know a little factual information which I do not mind admitting might not be considered in my favour; but, whether it is in my favour or in favour of the noble Lord, I think it might be helpful for the House to know what is the law in one other country, the only instance I have been able to discover. In Switzerland, the limit is 1,000 francs, which works out, I am told, at £83. That is below the figure which I am proposing in this Bill. But I must own—and this is what your Lordships might hold against me—that that figure was fixed in the year 1911. It is 1,000 francs. I state a fact and your Lordships can draw what deductions you like from that. Of course, I entirely echo the noble and learned Viscount's view that this is by no means a Party matter. The fact that the luggage of noble Lords opposite seems to be worth much more than that of noble Lords on this side of the House I regard as purely coincidental.

Finally, in asking your Lordships to pass this Bill, it seems to me that my task is to strike a just and reasonable balance between two parties whose interests may confict—the innkeeper and the public. That is my purpose. What is a just and reasonable balance is a matter of opinion, and on this point it is a matter of degree. We are divided only upon a figure. It is purely a matter of degree it is not a matter of principle in any way at all. Whatever figure your Lordships decide is right shall be incorporated in the Bill. But, having said that, I can odd only this. As was pointed out by my noble friend, Lord Derwent, this figure is in the Bill, rightly or wrongly, because it was the figure recommended by the Law Reform Committee. I agree with the noble Viscount opposite that we are not bound to follow that recommendation. The question is what we decide, and not what they decide. At the same time, that Committee was an extremely responsible Committee, I should say entirely unbiased, and they arrived at that figure after full consideration of all the facts and the evidence, only two years ago. Whatever your Lordships may think of it, I followed that figure in this Bill. I think that, although it is not conclusive and is not bound to be followed by us, we should think seriously before we depart from it, because I would remind your Lordships that this figure is just one of many points which were incorporated into one Report and thereafter into one Bill, all collectively in what is an attempt to arrive at an even balance between two conflicting interests.

4.38 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, let me first deal with the point that seems to have created some impression on the noble Lords, Lord Merthyr and Lord Derwent, that this is the figure from the Law Reform Committee's Report. I yield to nobody in my admiration of the learned gentlemen who constituted the Committee and who reported. At any rate, they came to the conclusion that the original figure was inadequate. On that I think they are very good judges; but are they necessarily good judges as to the value of somebody's suitcase at the present time? In any case, it was 1954 then, and now we are in 1956. I should have thought that any one of your Lordships was in as good a position to judge what the value of the normal contents of a suitcase was as members of the Law Reform Committee were. I ask noble Lords to judge for themselves whether a maximum of £100 is adequate at the present time.

Secondly, I do not presume to know what noble Lords have in their suitcases, although the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, appears to know what we on this side have in ours. But I do know that in my own family I could not replace the normal luggage of a male—and I am not at all extravagant—for £100, even allowing for the point the noble Lord, and I think the noble and learned Viscount, makes, that it is not replacement value but actual value at the time—I accept that, of course. Still less could you replace women'

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

luggage for that figure, especially if they are going to a number of evening functions and they want a change of attire.

But my final point is that we are not seeking to insert in the Bill an automatic figure of what is to be the compensation; it is based on actual loss. If the loss is not £200, then the innkeeper will not be liable for it. Why should not he pay if that is the actual, ascertained loss? If it is greater, then the guest himself is responsible. I cannot see the argument for limiting it to a figure which everyone in this House must know within his heart of hearts will, in a great many circumstances, be inadequate. It may not be inadequate if you go for the night to an hotel without necessarily requiring a change of attire; it is inadequate if you are going to stay several days in an hotel. If you know it is inadequate, then why do you want to impose a lower limit than will be adequate for the occasion? I hope, therefore, that, even at this very late hour—at five minutes past twelve—the noble Lord will see his way to accepting the Amendment.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided:—

Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS
Lothian, M. Amulree, L. Rathcavan, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Rea, L.
Albemarle, E. Burden, L. [Teller.] Salter, L.
Attlee, E. Colyton. L. Saltoun, L.
Ferrers, E. Greenhill. L. Sherwood, L.
Listowel, E. Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.] Silkin, L.
Lucan, E. Kershaw, L. Sinha, L.
Killearn, L. Windlesham, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, V. O'Hagan, L. Wise, L.
Thurso, V. Pethick-Lawrence, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.) Selkirk, E. Derwent, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. President) Stair, E. Ellenborough, L.
Fairfax of Cameron. L.
Cholmondeley, M. Colville of Culross, V. Freyberg, L.
Gilford, L. [Teller.)
Fortescue, E. Amherst of Hackney, L. Hawke, L.
Munster, E. Balfour of Burleigh, L. McCorquodale of Newton, L.
Onslow, E. Cherwell, L. Mancroft, L.
St. Aldwyn, E. Conesford, L. Merthyr, L. [Teller.]
Templemore, L.

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (3), to add to the proviso: and, at Me time when the guest in question first occupied the bedroom allocated to him, a further such copy either was placed in that bedroom in such manner that it might conveniently he read by him or had been handed to him". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name. With this confidence in the House having been restored, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will see his way to accept this Amendment. As the clause stands, there is an obligation on an hotel proprietor, if he wants to take advantage of this limitation of his liability, to exhibit a notice in a conspicuous place at the entrance. The point I should like to make is that this notice will not necessarily be seen by people who come to the hotel. It is, of course, the intention that it should be seen, and I think the noble Lord, in the Clause under consideration, does his best to make certain that a guest coming to the hotel will see this notice.

On the other hand, where it is desired to limit the liability of a person it is essential that the persons affected should be made aware that there is this limitation. I am not satisfied that in all cases a guest arriving at an hotel, especially if he is a foreigner, will read all the notices exhibited at the entrance and appreciate the position as to liability. I suggested, therefore, in an Amendment in Committee, that in addition to this notice, a notice should be exhibited in the bedrooms. A number of noble Lords, representing, so far as I could gather, the interests of very luxurious hotels, objected to spoiling the harmony and symphony of the decorations of the bedrooms by having such a notice exhibited. I never suggested it should be stuck on the wall, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, accused me of suggesting. It could be quite well done in a neat frame, but in order to meet his susceptibilities and the feelings of those who think like him, I am putting forward an alternative. That is that the notice limiting the liability should be handed to the guest, instead of being placed in the bedroom. The Amendment leaves it quite open as to how the notice should be made available for the guest for him to read. If the noble Lord does not like the idea of a notice in the bedroom, it is open to the proprietor to hand the copy to the guest when he arrives. I cannot see what possible objection there can be to this Amendment, except that it might cost the hotel proprietor something for printing these notices. If it is going to be done for tie benefit of the very luxurious hotels the expense cannot amount to a great deal, however, so I hope this Amendment will be accepted.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 3, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, I just want to say a word on this Amendment. I am afraid that on the last Amendment I supported the noble Lord in the Division Lobby, but to-day I want to oppose this Amendment. I do not see any useful purpose in it, mainly because I do not think people look at notices in their bedrooms. Under the clause a notice will be posted in the front hall by the reception desk, and in my opinion that should be quite enough to cover the point in question. If a notice were to be given to each guest when he arrives, not only would it be a fairly expensive business, because a large number of people stay in hotels in the course of a year, but I am sure that no particular purpose would be served and it would be an annoyance. It was bad enough in the old days when we were all compelled to register. If we are now going to be given bits of paper, I think it will be more annoying. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will not accept this Amendment.

LORd DERWENT

My Lords, I am sorry Lord Silkin believes that I was thinking only of the beauty of rooms in large hotels, because in such hotels the smaller the proportion of the wall the notice would cover. There, are many small hotels which have been tastefully decorated, and there, too, the proprietors dislike the idea of having notices in their rooms. I do not believe that people are more likely to read bits of paper in their rooms than at the reception desk.

The idea of handing a piece of paper to the guest, I must say I dislike even more than I do the idea of putting notices in the bedrooms. Apart from the fact that there is the cost of printing, I can visualise the small hotel with three or four lots of guests arriving at once. It will often be the proprietor himself who receives them and shows them to their rooms, and if the Amendment is accepted the poor man will have to present a bit of paper to each one. Suppose he forgets one. I do not know how it is to be known that he has forgotten. Is there to be a "snooper" in the hall saying, "You have broken the law"? It really seems entirely unnecessary. I repeat what I said at the Committee stage. This Bill sets out two places in which he can put up the notice, and it states quite definitely that the notice must be conspicuous. If there is any proprietor who does not carry out that duty the fact can easily be seen. Somebody comes into the hotel and there is no notice which he can easily see; the notice is not conspicuous. I feel that this Amendment would add to the burden of the hotel proprietor without any additional safeguard for the guest.

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has ever been in a small country hotel when a 32-seater coach comes in with a party. It is pandemonium as it is, with the luggage. If 32 little pieces of paper have to be handed out, as well as dealing with all the luggage, and with the staff distracted. I am sure that within ten minutes the lounge or reception hall would look as if a paper chase had taken place there. I think the handing out of notices is impracticable. It is not done, so far as I know, in any country in the world. I have been to hotels in six countries, including Soviet Russia, in the last month. I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, this is not a point, I confess, upon which I feel very strongly, but having heard the arguments, not only to-day but in Committee, I have come to the conclusion with no hesitation that on balance the best course is to adopt the Bill as it stands and not to alter it in either direction. I would just invite your Lordships to consider the position under the Bill as it stands. The proviso to subsection (2) says: The proprietor shall not be entitled to the protection of this subsection unless, at the time when the property in question was brought to the hotel, a copy of the notice…was conspicuously displayed in a place where it could conveniently be read by his guests at or near the reception office or desk… That is one alternative. The other alternative is, according to the Amend- ment, that the notice must either be placed in the bedroom or handed out to the guests on arrival. We have heard the arguments against placing the notice in the bedroom. I do not object very much to having the notice in the bedroom, but I understand that the hotel proprietors do. We have heard their reasons, and on the whole I think they are proper reasons—reasons which are weighty and which should be given effect to.

I would ask the House to consider this question not only as one of convenience but as one in which law is involved. What is to happen if there is a dispute which is taken to court? In this connection, I submit, the Bill has an advantage, because, I suggest, it would be simpler and far easier to prove whether or no a notice had been conspicuously displayed "at or near the reception office or desk," and so forth, than it would be to prove that a slip of paper had been handed to a guest. What is to happen if the other side says: "No such slip of paper was, in fact, handed out"? There is going to be an argument, and I think it will be far more difficult for the court to decide that issue than to decide whether there was a conspicuous display of what, after all, would be a permanent notice—no doubt in a frame. That reason compels me to suggest to the House that, on balance, it would be preferable to reject this Amendment, and to leave the Bill as it is. There is little more I need say. Whichever way the decision of the House goes, I think this provision can be worked. But I think that the Bill can be worked better as it is now than if it is amended in the way the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggests.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has taken the same view about every Amendment which has been put forward—that on balance it is better that it should be rejected. I am not going to press this Amendment, but I feel that those who have spoken have really not appreciated its point. I originally put down an Amendment to ensure that a guest was certain to see the notice. I thought that a safe way of doing that was to have the notice exhibited in the bedroom. But some noble Lords said that a bedroom was not a good place in which to have it. They said that it might spoil the beauty of the rooms in the case of certain hotels—possibly in half a dozen luxury establishments. My feeling was that there could be an alternative to meet these few cases—let them hand out a notice to the guest. Lord Gifford has said that there would be hundreds of notices handed out, and that it would lead to confusion. But the hotel proprietor if he wished would have the simple remedy of putting a notice in the bedroom. It is the same with regard to the arguments that might arise in the courts. If there was a notice in the bedroom, there could be no argument as to whether a slip of paper was handed out or not. I think I have demonstrated that this Amendment is not as unreasonable as some noble Lords have tried to make out, but I will not press it. With your Lordships' permission, I will now withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to