§ 3.39 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)My Lords, I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.
§ Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, before the House agrees to this Motion, as I assume it will, I should like to ask a question of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, as to what are the intentions of the Government about this Bill. Obviously, it is not the intention to pass the Bill during this Session, and, in that case, having passed the Committee stage, it will be re-introduced in the next Session. On that assumption, I have not put down any Amendments to the Bill: indeed, I am somewhat taken by surprise that it is going through the Committee stage. I should like the noble and learned Viscount to appreciate that this does not mean that when the Bill comes back to us at some later date there may not then be some Amendments put down.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am happy to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. As he may remember, during the discussion on Second Reading I said that I hoped we should be able to have a Committee stage before the Recess, and a Report stage after the Recess. As the noble Lord will remember, there were circumstances which made that impossible. I also made clear that I could not hope that the Bill would pass through another place as well as this House this Session, and I was anxious that the Bill should be introduced and discussed in your Lordships' House in order that it might give an opportunity for comment from all those who were interested. It will not be possible for the Bill to pass through another place, but I should very much like your Lordships to allow it to pass through your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has been a Minister himself and knows, as I reminded him yesterday, that there is always keen competition for a legislative place, and it would help me in a matter 1084 which is very near my heart— that is, to give legislative effect to Reports of this kind—if the Bill could pass through your Lordships' House. But I quite understand that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, although he does not move Amendments to-day, reserves every right to move Amendments when the Bill comes again before your Lordships' House. If there is any point that he would like specially considered, or would like to discuss with me, I am. of course, as always, at his disposal.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
§ Clauses I to 3 agreed to.
§ Clause 4:
§ Landlord's liability in virtue of obligation to repair
§ 4.—(1) Where premises are occupied by any person under a tenancy which puts on the landlord an obligation to that person for the maintenance or repair of the premises, the landlord shall owe to all persons who or whose goods may from time to time be lawfully on the premises the same duty, in respect of dangers arising from any default by him in carrying out that obligation, as if he were an occupier of the premises and those persons or their goods were there by his invitation or permission (but without any contract).
§ 3.43 p.m.
§ LORD MESTON moved, in subsection (1) after "dangers" to insert, "of which he has notice". The noble Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I have done all manner of queer things in my life, but I have never before been the only person who has moved an Amendment on the Committee stage of what I consider a very important Bill. I feel quite nervous, and I hope no trap has been set for me. The object of this Amendment is to make a landlord liable for disrepair of premises only in those cases in which he has notice of disrepair. I think I am correct in saying that a landlord is liable for disrepair only where he has express notice of disrepair from his tenant. I am not suggesting that that principle must be imported into a Statute, but it strikes me as being fair that it should find a place in this Bill. The landlord may be a considerable distance away; he may be several hundreds of miles away from the property which is demised to a tenant. I fail to see how one can reasonably make him 1085 liable for disrepair unless he has previous notice of disrepair from his tenant. That is the short point, and the only point. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, after (" dangers ") insert (" of which he has notice ").—(Lord Meston.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think the whole. House will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has raised a point which would be an important point if it were necessary to be inserted in the Bill. I hope to show him in a few words that it is not necessary, and I hope that if I convince him he will not press his Amendment.
As the noble Lord has said, the Amendment is intended to ensure that the landlord shall not be liable for defects in the premises of which he is unaware, and I hope to show him that that is the effect of the clause as it stands. The noble Lord will observe that, under Clause 4, the landlord is liable to his tenant's visitors where they are injured as a result of the landlord's default in carrying out an obligation to maintain or repair the premises. But if the noble Lord will look on from subsection (I) to subsection (4), he will see that subsection (4) expressly provides that the landlord shall not be considered to be in default under this obligation unless his default is such that it would be actionable at the suit of the occupying tenant. A covenant by a land lord to repair demised premises is construed, as the noble Lord knows very well, as a covenant to repair on notice. If the noble Lord would like to check that, I may say that the authority is the case of Torrens v. Walker reported 1906 2 Chancery Division, at page 166. If the noble Lord wants to be spared a journey to the Law Reports, he will find it referred to in paragraph 90 of the Law Reform Committee's Report. Until he has received notice, or has actual knowledge of the want of repair, the landlord is not guilty of any breach of his obligation, and he cannot be sued under Clause 4 for injuries resulting from want of repair before he had notice of it. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with what I have said, and will not press his Amendment.
LORD MESTONThe noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has completely satisfied me by his answer. Indeed, I feel rather foolish at having 1086 moved the Amendment. However, it is not the only time I have acted foolishly, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me. I thank the Lord Chancellor very much and, if I may say so off the record, I know that all property owners will be very satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, Clause 4 agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported without amendment,