HL Deb 29 May 1956 vol 197 cc542-51

2.46 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. May I begin by reminding your Lordships briefly of the present position of the hotel proprietor or, as the law prefers to call him still, the innkeeper. His position was regulated by the Common Law until comparatively recent times. Under the Common Law, innkeepers were liable to travellers strictly for the loss, though it is now thought not for the damage, which was occasioned to any of the travellers' goods. It may seem to us in these days a little harsh that that should be so, but one must remember that in olden days travelling was a hazardous business. I am sorry to say that at that time, though not of course recently, a certain number of innkeepers were in league with thieves and highwaymen; therefore it was no doubt wise and necessary that in those days this strict liability should be enforced.

That remained the position until the year 1863, by which time travelling had become much more common and much safer. Therefore, in that year Parliament limited the liability of innkeepers and said that, where no negligence was involved on the part of the innkeeper, the liability should be limited to £30. But that limitation did not apply—and it is rather important to remember this—to animals or to vehicles. It is important to remember it because since 1863 times have again changed, and now, instead of bringing horses and carriages to the inn, the traveller is apt to bring an expensive motor car. So in 1956 Parliament is now asked to deal with times which have further changed. But innkeepers remain liable for loss by persons who come to their premises.

The next point I want to make is that innkeepers, according to decisions of the courts, are liable for losses incurred not only by the old-fashioned travellers who occupy sleeping accommodation at the inn but also by more casual travellers or even by people who come to the hotel only for a meal or for a drink. The innkeepers remain liable, subject to the Act of 1863. This was brought to the attention of the country recently by the case of a man who left a valuable motor car in a car park, went into a hotel only for a drink, found that his car had been stolen and successfully sued the proprietor of the hotel for the loss of the car. It is perhaps especially hard on innkeepers that this should be so when it does not apply to restaurants, boarding-houses or cafés which are not inns. In these circumstances, the Lord Chancellor in the year 1952 asked the Law Reform Committee which he had appointed to investigate the state of the law in this matter and to make recommendations. This they did in 1954, and their recommendations are largely, though not entirely, incorporated in this Bill.

The Bill applies to innkeepers only; it does not affect restaurants or cafés or boarding-houses. I understand that there was a movement to remove the distinction between an inn, properly so described, and other kinds of establishment, but on the whole it has been thought wiser to retain the present distinction and not to change it. But the Bill applies to all inns, and therefore I would remind your Lordships that it applies to such places as the Ritz and the Dorchester, and I may perhaps be forgiven for varying the well-known dictum by saying that the Ritz, like the law, is open to all. It applies to what are known as common inns, which I submit is a most honourable title and one not to be despised, though I understand that nowadays these places are more usually described by more polite names, such as "hotels" or other titles. The definition of the common inn is, I believe, one which takes in any bona fide traveller who appears to be able to pay for the accommodation for which he asks and is in a fit condition to make use of that accommodation. Such an inn is bound to take in any traveller and cannot refuse him, except for some reasonable cause.

This Bill seeks to remove or to alter some of the harshness which has come into the law as a result of modern conditions. Clause 1(1) of the Bill makes it clear that the status of the inn is retained and not discarded. This subsection is declaratory of the law and is inserted to remove any possible doubt that may exist. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 stipulates that there shall be liability for damage, as well as for loss. Hitherto, there has been at least a doubt as to whether an innkeeper was liable for damage to a guest's goods, as opposed to their complete loss. At one time it was thought that he was, but recent decisions in the courts have made it clear that he is not now so liable unless there is negligence on his part. So, under the present law, we find this rather disturbing situation. If a valuable motor car is parked at an inn, is stolen and is not recovered, the innkeeper is liable. If that same motor car is parked at the inn, is stolen, is involved in a crash and is wrecked beyond repair, the innkeeper is not liable. This Bill will remove that distinction by making it perfectly clear beyond doubt (if there is a doubt) that in future there will be liability for damage as well as for loss. Subsection (3) lays down what I hope is a clear definition of "hotel." I need not read it—the definition is in the Bill; but I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it applies only to travellers.

Clause 2 deals with the limitation of liability. Subsection (1)(a) lays it down that there will be liability—this I think is an important new departure in the law only where sleeping accommodation is engaged. That means that the liability will not in future attach to those thousands of people who visit hotels for meals or drinks only and not for sleeping accommodation. It will apply, therefore, to genuine travellers who want a night's lodging. Because of that it is necessary, in paragraph (b), to define the limits of the engagement of sleeping accommodation. Clause 2 (2) lays down that in future there will be no liability on the part of an innkeeper for vehicles or for animals, even in the case of a traveller who has sleeping accommodation. On the other hand, the innkeeper is deprived of his lien on those goods, vehicles or animals, which up to now he has enjoyed. I submit that that is a fair and just compromise and arrangement. Therefore, we shall deal in this Bill with the situation which arises to an increasing extent from the parking of cars outside these premises.

I have mentioned the Act of 1863, and I would now draw your attention to the fact that since that date, of course, the value of money has changed. Clause 2(3) therefore increases the liability of innkeepers, where it applies, to £50, in respect of any one article owned by any one guest, and to £100 in total. But there is an exception to that. This liability will not be limited in the case of the wilful act or default of the proprietor. Nor will it be limited in cases where the goods concerned have been deposited with him or where he has refused to accept those goods on deposit. My Lords, there is then a proviso, which I think is interesting, which lays down that before he can enjoy the protection afforded by this Bill, the proprietor must display a copy of Section 2 (as it will be when the Bill becomes law) on his premises.

In this connection I should like to inform your Lordships that if you give a Second Reading to this Bill this afternoon, I propose on the Committee stage to move an Amendment, the effect of which will be to insert in the Bill a Schedule containing a statement in ordinary language, as opposed to legal language, stating the liability of the innkeeper, and to provide that, instead of a copy of the whole of Section 2 having to be displayed on the premises, a copy of the Schedule only will have to be displayed. I think that would be an improvement, but I will leave argument on that matter until the Committee stage. Finally, Clause 3 of the Bill repeals the whole Act of 1863. I hope that I have said enough to persuade your Lordships that this Bill is an improvement in the law, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)

3.0 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, this Bill comes to this House as a Private Member's Bill, but under very respectable auspices—namely, as the result of the recommendation the Law Reform Committee. It is largely a Bill for the protection of innkeepers and I imagine it has been inspired by innkeepers: it need not be any the worse for that, but it is important to have that fact in mind in examining the Bill. I want to say at once that I have no objection to the Bill's receiving a Second Reading, but I feel it will require some exceptional scrutiny because of the fact that it is a Bill introduced at the instigation of innkeepers.

There are a number of respects in which this House will want to look at the Bill, and the first is as to the liability of an innkeeper for a traveller's goods. I am prepared to accept the definition of "innkeeper" as laid down in this Bill, and the distinction between an innkeeper and the proprietor of a boarding-house or a restaurant, for they fall into rather different categories. A traveller arrives at an inn with his luggage, deposits his luggage in a bedroom and may then go out. That luggage may be valuable. In these days it is difficult to find luggage such as one normally requires for a night or two which, including the case, is worth less than £100. Nevertheless, under this Bill the innkeeper's liability is restricted to that amount. All he has to do is to exhibit a notice near the desk where one registers. Then, whatever may be the value of the goods, his liability is limited to £100 unless the traveller can prove negligence.

Your Lordships will no doubt have had some experience of attempting to prove negligence on the part of an innkeeper. How does the poor traveller set about proving negligence? He may find when he comes back to his room that an article is missing. He may discover the loss only after he has left the inn. He may even find that the whole of his luggage has gone or perhaps that some damage has been caused. How does he prove negligence? I cannot see why it is necessary to restrict the rights of a traveller in the way indicated in the Bill. I recognise that this is a matter which can be dealt with on Committee, but since the whole purpose of the Bill is to limit the liability of the innkeeper, that is rather more than a Committee point. My view is that there should be no limitation on an innkeeper's liability except, perhaps, that it may be fair to limit his liability in respect of the value of one particular article. For example, it may be unfair to impose upon an innkeeper responsibility for an extremely valuable article brought by a traveller who comes for one night; an article of which the innkeeper is given no notice such as might have enabled him to take special protective precautions. Subject to that, I feel it is unfair to the traveller that there should be this limitation, and I believe that the House will want to examine the Bill much more carefully to ensure that there is justice as between the traveller and the innkeeper.

As regards motor cars, I appreciate the need for protection for the innkeeper where motor cars are parked outside his premises without his having been given notice. I am not sure whether the Bill is clear regarding the position of a person who puts his car in a garage or some place indicated by the innkeeper as a place where cars may be left. Is the innkeeper still without any liability with regard to that car? If he holds himself out as being in a position to look after cars, then he ought to be under a liability if a car is stolen; and still more so if he makes a charge for garaging. Sometimes one is authorised to leave a car in the yard of an inn and one is entitled to assume that it will be looked after and kept free from damage. These are the main points which I believe will have to be looked at when the Bill comes to be examined in more detail, but in general I think it is a Bill which is entitled to have, and I would recommend to the House that it should be given, a Second Reading.

3.5 p.m.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, I wonder whether I might venture one remark, merely as a layman between lawyers. I should have thought it very desirable that it should be clearly laid down by Statute where liability rested and who was responsible—innkeeper or owner—when a motor car was stolen or damaged. I do not know that it matters very much where the line of responsibility lies. Once liability is clearly laid down it is perfectly simple for a motor car owner, by an insurance policy, to insure himself where the innkeeper is not liable, and for the innkeeper similarly to insure himself where he is liable. I should have thought that that was the common sense of the matter we have been debating.

3.7 p.m.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has answered by implication one of two questions which I had intended to put this afternoon. I was wondering why it was that an establishment which offered food and drink as well as accommodation became liable only when accommodation was occupied or intended to be occupied, having in fact been engaged. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, correctly, restaurants are not liable, and in so far as hotels are restaurants, they will not be liable either. On the other hand, I would ask the noble Lord this question arising out of that position. Suppose a traveller who stops at an hotel only for a meal leaves his coat in a cloakroom and it disappears. As my noble friend, Lord Silkin, has pointed out, it is difficult to show negligence; but, with or without negligence, has the traveller any claim against the hotel keeper?

My other question was put in a slightly different form by my noble friend, Lord Silkin, and reinforced by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. With regard to motor vehicles, it seems that some liability should lie with a yard or garage if either is held out as a suitable place in which to park a motor car; or, alternatively, if they are actually let for that purpose, as frequently they are; or where a charge is made for leaving a car in a yard, out of which charge one would suppose that some form of guardian could have been paid. I should have thought some liability might well lie in those circumstances. But I shall be interested to know why the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, feels there should be no liability in respect of motor cars. It may be, of course, that in some other way liability does arise. May I finally make one small grammatical suggestion to the noble Lord?—I do so with great diffidence. I am pretty sure that the vast majority of the Members of your Lordships' House say "an hotel" rather than "a hotel". May I. suggest a small alteration accordingly to the noble Lord?

3.10 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)

My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for long, but I wish to say just three things. One is that the Government welcome the Bill, and are grateful to my noble friend Lord Merthyr for his work upon it. As my noble friend has said, this Bill arises out of a recommendation of the Law Reform Committee's Second Report. Then I think it is right that I should say a word in answer to the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the Bill is mainly for the protection of innkeepers and was introduced at their instigation. So far as my information goes, it was exactly the contrary. This Bill increases the innkeepers' liability. The statutory limitation on liabilities is increased from £30 to £100 and the Bill adversely affects the innkeepers in that way. For that reason the Hotel Proprietors' Association, in their evidence before the Law Reform Committee, were against any change in the law. And the same applies to the provision that strict liability applies to damage, as well as to loss. It ought to be made clear that the Law Reform Committee go into these matters very fully, and consider mainly whether the law is susceptible of improvement.

That brings me to my final point. I think it is very important, when a Committee of that sort have been asked to consider questions of this kind—and my predecessors have always done that in the hope that, after consideration, improvements of the law will be brought about—that their suggestions should be brought before Parliament and discussed. I am not going to-day into the merits of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Faringdon, but I want to say that it is important that these remits of Committees of busy people who have given up time to consider them, and who give very careful consideration to the problems raised, should not be pigeonholed but should be discussed and, ultimately, in their best form improve the law of the country. I wish to support the Bill.

3.14 p.m.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, in reply to this short debate I should first like to say how grateful I am to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, for mentioning the subject of insurance. I think that I ought to have done that in my Second Reading speech. Of course, this is another respect in which times have changed. Nowadays, nearly everyone is insured. Not only are innkeepers, for the most part, insured against their liabilities, but motor cars are insured not only against third party risk but, in the main, against loss or theft. That factor has an important bearing on this whole question. I noted most carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, and I should like to draw his attention to a provision in the Bill which I am sure he has already noted—I refer to Clause 2(3)(b). The noble Lord made the point, not unnaturally, that in these days £100 even is not a very high figure, and he suggested that perhaps there should be no liability limit at all. I would draw his attention to the fact that if the traveller cares to deposit his goods then the limit of £100 does not apply, because in line 22 on page 2 there appear the words: except where— And then follow three exceptions to this limit of liability. If, therefore, a traveller cares to take the trouble to deposit his goods—or it may be the noble Lord's suitcase valued at several hundreds of pounds—the innkeeper's liability is not limited.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I specifically excepted valuables which a person might be carrying: I was referring to the ordinary luggage. If, the next time the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, goes away for a night, he cares, to amuse himself by putting a valuation on the ordinary necessities which he carries in his suitcase he will find that they amount to more than £100. It is no use depositing them; he wants those things with him for the night.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, I entirely see the point which the noble Lord made in his last words. I think we shall have to leave it at that. The noble Lord may have higher standards of luggage than I have.

The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, spoke of the question of the coat left in the cloakroom of an inn (as I prefer to call it) by a person who is not a traveller and who comes in merely for a meal. I have no doubt that that point was most carefully considered by the Law Reform Committee, and they came down, I think rightly, on this issue, and limited the whole question to genuine travellers, excluding the person who comes in only for a meal. I venture to think that in these days they were right. Opinions may differ on the subject, but there it is, and we must leave it at that, subject to any Amendments which may be put down.

I would add only that if there is any liability in any other respect that liability is not affected. In this connection, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the wording of Clause 2(2). This subsection states that: Without prejudice to any other liability or right— It cuts both ways— of his with respect thereto the proprietor of a hotel— I beg Lord Faringdon's pardon— shall not as an innkeeper be liable — and so on. I would specially draw attention to those words "as an innkeeper". So it is only innkeepers who come under this provision. As I have said, the whole status of boarding-houses, restaurants and cafés is unaltered by this Bill. Rightly or wrongly, it remains as it was before the Bill was introduced.

Finally I would add this: that if the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, cares to put down an Amendment to leave out the word "a" and insert the word "an" before "hotel" I will give careful consideration to it; but I am not, at the present stage, admitting that I am wrong and that he is right. I think that that point will have to be looked into.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.