HL Deb 02 July 1959 vol 217 cc668-84

4.39 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Variation of rules of common law as to duty of care owed by occupiers]:

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD FORBES)

I should like to speak on Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. At the end of subsection (1) of this clause your Lordships will see the words, "for which he is in law responsible." As the subsection now stands, there is a doubt whether this phrase relates to the word "dangers" in line 11 or to some or all of the words "the state of the premises or to anything done or omitted to be done on them." What we aim to do by these Amendments is to put it beyond doubt that this phrase qualifies the word "dangers", since it is only in respect of those dangers for which the occupier is in law responsible that the Bill defines his duty towards his visitors. As this is lawyer's law, not being a lawyer myself I have attempted and I shall continue to attempt to keep the ball in my own court. I only hope that noble Lords will not hit the ball too hard out of my court, because if they do it will be a lost ball as far as I am concerned, and I shall have to invite my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to retrieve it for me. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, after ("dangers") insert ("which are").—(Lord Forbes.)

LORD REID

As this and the following Amendments, which are really drafting Amendments, give effect to certain suggestions made by my noble and learned friend, Lord Keith of Avonholm, and myself, I think it only right to express our satisfaction that the Government have seen fit to adopt our suggestions.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 12, after ("them") insert ("and").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES

For the convenience of the Committee I should like to speak on Amendments 3, 4 and 5. These Amendments effect slight improvements in the drafting of subsection (3) of Clause 1. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 20, leave out ("in relation to").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 21, after ("(a)") insert ("in relation to").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 1, after ("(b)") insert ("in relation to").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Extent of occupier's duty to show care]:

LORD FORBES

I should like to speak on Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. These Amendments are consequential on Amendments 1 and 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 7, after ("dangers") insert ("which are").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 9, after ("them") insert ("and").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES moved in subsection (1) to leave out "or otherwise,". The noble Lord said: To put it in the broadest terms, Clause 2 provides that the standard of care which an occupier owes to persons on his premises shall be such as is reasonable in all the circumstances. But an occupier may seek to modify his obligations towards his visitors, except in so far as they are obligations laid on him, for example by Statutes such as the Factories Acts, out of which he cannot lawfully contract. Where he alters his obligations by agreement, express or implied, no difficulty arises. But as the clause is drafted at present it covers the case where the occupier seeks to alter his obligations otherwise than by agreement, for example, by notice. If this happens, questions may arise whether the notice was adequate to inform the visitor of any risks he might be incurring in entering the premises and for which the occupier assumed a different degree of liability, whether the visitor saw or ought to have seen the notice, and so forth. We therefore propose, by this Amendment, that the clause should refer only to alterations of liability made by agreement. If an occupier claims to have altered his obligations in any other fashion—for example, by putting up the notice I have referred to—this will be one of the circumstances of the case to which the court will have regard in determining the degree of responsibility which in the particular case rested on the occupier.

Perhaps I might give some examples of this. A joiner comes to repair a window in a loft. The loft floor is rotten. The occupier says to him, "You go in there at your own risk." The joiner says, "I will accept that". That is an agreement, and if the joiner suffered any injury he would have no claim against the occupier. If, on the other hand, the occupier merely puts up a notice saying, "Dangerous floor", and somebody injures himself, that person can sue the owner. In the case of a normal adult the court would consider that the occupier had taken reasonable care, but in the case of small children the notice would not amount to reasonable care having been taken. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 11, leave out ("or otherwise,").—(Lord Forbes.)

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is not putting on the occupier a greater responsibility than that which is assumed by people who repair our roads. It seems to me that they are getting off very much more cheaply than the occupier under this Amendment.

LORD FORBES

In this case it is entirely for the courts to decide whether the occupier has taken reasonable care to safeguard any visitor.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES

During Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, drew attention to a possible defect in the wording of Clause 2. The Bill at present provides that the care required of the occupier must be such as to "secure" his visitor's safety. The noble and learned Lord suggested that "secure" pitches the duty unreasonably high and carries the implication that the occupier's duty amounts to an absolute guarantee to his visitor against injury. We have looked at this matter carefully since Second Reading and have come to the conclusion that the noble and learned Lord is right. Since the Bill provides that the occupier's duty is to take reasonable care, no more and no less, we think that the more neutral wording, to "see" that the visitor is not injured, should be substituted. I may mention that the word "see" is used in a similar context in the English Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 13, leave out ("secure") and insert ("see").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

4.49 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:

As to injuries suffered by intruders

" . In any claim arising out of injury suffered on any premises by a person who has entered thereon without the consent of the occupier or person having control thereof it shall be a defence for the occupier or person having control thereof to show that having regard to all the circumstances of the case all reasonable steps had been taken to prevent access to the premises by any person not having his consent or to give warning of any danger thereon."

The noble Viscount said: This is the point of the trespassers or, as I have chosen not to call them trespassers, those who enter premises without the occupier's consent, which was raised by the two noble and learned Lords and by others on Second Reading. I have put down this Amendment in this form with the full awareness that I shall probably get the answer that that, in fact, is what the law, as the Bill is intended to make it, will be in any case. But I have had to do that because I realise that the question of juries is not one that can be raised to-day.

I do not want to ask Her Majesty's Government any questions or press for answers about juries, because I know that a Committee is sitting on that subject at the moment. But the decision of that Committee has not yet come and this Bill will soon become law. The decision of the Committee may be that juries should go, or it may equally be that juries should stay. If they stay, and in any case until the Committee have reported, we are still going to have juries who will decide this class of case. I have therefore thought fit to put down this Amendment, for the reason that juries never give reasons for their decisions, and one may suppose that it is more likely that they will not perhaps take as full an account of the strict law as a judge would if he were making the decision.

What I wish to do is to be able to strengthen the hand of the defence, particularly in a case where somebody who has not the consent of the occupier to enter has none the less done so and been injured. The sort of thing I am thinking of is the ruined house in the middle of a city; or it may be ruins on an unfrequented part of a country estate, or almost any dangerous thing, like a tree or one of those magic attractions which will always induce small boys to climb up them. I have no illusions about the agility of Scottish small boys to climb anything that they have set their hearts to climb; yet do what you will—block up the entrances and put barbed wire round them—they will still get in. I am afraid that there may be hard cases where the landlord has tried extremely hard to keep out these children—or they may be grown-ups—and yet has failed, and they suffer injury.

I hope that this Amendment is a constructive suggestion. It will certainly, I think, be useful in the meantime until the jury situation is decided; and as I have no doubt that, were juries to be abolished in this class of case, it would need legislation thereafter, if it was felt that this clause was not needed, it could perhaps be repealed at the same time. Therefore, I shall be most interested to hear the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, as to whether he thinks it would in fact be an asset to have some such defence as this in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 2 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM

I appreciate the purpose of this Amendment but I am not at all happy about it. I would ask the noble Viscount, for instance, what exactly is mean by "consent"? If a person comes up to my doorstep or comes up my drive to make an inquiry about something, I should not have thought that he had my consent. Take the case of the person who digs a trench in his field, and suppose a trespasser—I mean a poacher, or some person with a nefarious design—enters the field in the middle of the night and falls into this trench. All this clause says is "not having his consent". That person certainly has not got the occupier's consent. But I am going to assume that he has given no warning of this particular trench. The poacher falls into this trench, and he may come forward and say, "No warning of this trench was given. I have fallen into it. I am entitled under this clause to get damages." I do not say that he might not have his claim thrown out upon some other ground; but it seems to me that if one looks at it from that point of view, this clause does not really cover exactly what is in my noble friend's mind.

My view is that, particularly looking at the position with regard to juries, the matter is adequately covered by Clause 2 as it stands, because the clause provides that the occupier shall show such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable. I should think that the question of the trespasser was adequately covered by that provision, and that it would be a safer clause to meet the trespasser than the clause proposed to be introduced directly to meet that situation. I do not think that the new clause does meet the situation adequately. But I am prepared, if on the Government side it is proposed that this clause shall be accepted, to say nothing more about it. I just want to make it clear to my noble friend that I do not think that the clause is really adequate for the purpose for which he intends it.

LORD REID

I think it was clear on Second Reading that my noble friend and I took a slightly different view on one point, and I think we still do. As regards the second point in this new clause, that it should be a defence to give warning, I would agree that that can hardly be proved because it is so indefinite that it would give rise to great difficulties. I would therefore agree with my noble and learned friend in urging the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, not to press that part of the clause. But I am bound to say that I feel more difficulty about the first half of the clause, where it provides that it shall be a defence to show that all reasonable steps have been taken to prevent access. Not infrequently, there have been cases where children, in particular, have broken through fences, notwithstanding the repeated attempts of the landowner to stop them.

I am thinking in particular of a case where an action for damages was brought against British Railways although they had done their best, by mending a fence time and again, to keep the children out. Under the existing law it was held authoritatively that because of that fact there was no case against them. But under the Bill the matter is left at large. It may well be—I think I indicated this view on Second Reading—that some juries will accept the view that if a landowner has done his best to keep the children out he has exercised all reasonable care. But he may have on his ground some fairly obvious danger which he might, without undue expense, have fenced or removed. At present he is not bound to do that, and it may be said "You knew that these children were defeating your efforts in that they were getting through. You knew that an accident might be very serious, yet you did not spend the few necessary pounds to put this right."

That situation always arises, and one is apt to be wise after the event. In a case like that, the occupier might never have really considered the matter; he might have done it if he had been obliged to. He will he told "You ought to have considered it". I am bound to say that I have a fear, particularly so long as these cases go to juries, that children who persist in breaking in and then fall into some kind of danger and, it may be, sustain serious injuries, will recover damages in future in circumstances where they are not able to do so at present. I am not going to express any view about whether that is a good or a bad thing. If there was a division of opinion upon this I do not think that I should wish to press the matter one way or the other. It is a question of policy and I feel that the considerations are pretty evenly balanced. But I think it right to say that there is a point, and a very good point; but I would not support the other part of the clause.

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to support my noble friend in his Amendment. I really do not understand why, in a case of this kind, just because the whole position of juries has been questioned by a Committee, Her Majesty's Government should refuse to give us a judge in this particular case which is so well fitted for it. Juries are often swayed by their sympathy for the victim and have no particular care for the actual law on the matter. I, for my sins (though it is not a case I am thinking very much about), have a very old tower which is an ancient monument, which is gradually being destroyed by the children of the town whom I am unable to keep away; and no expenditure on my part has ever enabled me to succeed in doing so. I am afraid that ultimately the ancient monument will disappear and then I shall have no liability. But it seems to me that under this Bill I might be caught by a jury in a very unfortunate way.

I am thinking, however, much more of the countryside and of country life. If a man has to drain his field, he must leave an open trench, which is a very nasty place for a farm servant to fall into when crossing at night. I am also inclined to wonder who owns Ben Nevis and the Cairngorms, and whether juries will consider that sufficient notice boards have been put round those great areas to prevent people from hurting themselves when they go up. All those things are particularly important, especially at Ben Nevis, where in one area one can see many feet down into the mountain. There are great rocks, each the size of an ordinary room, piled one on top of another, with no earth covering them, where one could easily fall down. I wonder who would be responsible and who is the owner who might be liable should someone fall.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I should like to support the idea behind this Amendment by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, although I agree that there may be practical difficulties to the Amendment as it stands at the moment—for this reason. I believe that at present if one puts a cattle grid in a private road, and someone who has not asked permission walking down the road at night falls into the cattle grid and breaks a leg, one is responsible. At any rate, when we put cattle grids into some of our private roads our lawyers said we must put wire netting over them—which was defeating the point, for it meant that sheep could run straight across, as well as strange children. Accidents are much more likely to happen at night, so that it is no good putting up a warning sign saying, "Cattle grid ahead", because no one will see it at night. I feel that there should be some clause such as this which would enable the owner of land to avoid having any responsibility towards trespassers who, through their own carelessness, hurt themselves while they are on his land.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I also wish to support the spirit behind this Amendment. I am in very great doubt as to the liability involved where children climb over a fence. That fence may be perfectly secure when the first child goes over it, but he may swing on it and a staple may come out so that the second child, trespassing, may catch its leg upon it and may fall and break a limb. That kind of thing has happened in the past and will happen again. I do not quite see where the liability is going to rest in a case of that kind where children are climbing, perhaps on ruins. One cannot keep them out, for children are children; but I think that something is necessary at the present time to give a reasonable degree of safeguard to occupiers of land and premises of the kind where this can happen, perhaps during the night when they have no possibility of control. I think that either the position should be clarified or some Amendment of this kind should be considered.

5.5 p.m.

LORD FORBES

If I have understood noble Lords correctly, I think we shall all sympathise with the intention of this Amendment, which is to cover the position when, say, a trespasser (as we may loosely call him), climbs over a barbed wire fence, ignoring a notice which says "Danger: keep away from edge", and falls into a quarry. The Amendment seeks to give the occupier in such cases a defence against liability for the resulting injuries. But surely the point is that the occupier already has such a defence. The Bill lays upon him the duty to take reasonable care, and he can maintain that he has done so by putting up the fence or exhibiting a notice. That is his defence, which obviously the court will take into account along with all the other relevant circumstances.

I submit that the Amendment does not give any further advantage to the occupier. It provides that he must take all reasonable steps to prevent access or give warning of the danger. In fact it brings us back to the question of what is "reasonable". It will be for the court to decide what are "reasonable steps", just as under the Bill as it stands at present the court must decide what is "reasonable care". Thus, under the Amendment, as under the Bill in its present form, the occupier's liability rests firmly upon the decision of the Court. But the difference is that the Amendment attempts to specify the kind of reasonable care which must be taken—in this case, of course, care to prevent access. This is contrary to the view of the Law Reform Committee which recommended that: detailed elaborate codification of this branch of the law of Scotland should not be attempted but rather that liability should be made to depend upon the broad general principle of culpa." I am sure the Committee were right in this recommendation.

The circumstances in which people can enter on to land, whether with or without the consent of the occupier, are infinitely varied, and if we try to provide for each type of case we shall find ourselves once more in the kind of confusion which the Bill seeks to remedy. If we take the case of children who, as we have already heard, are notoriously undeterred by warnings of danger—indeed they may be attracted by them—is the occupier of premises containing dangerous machinery on which he knows children are in the habit of trespassing to be absolved from liability merely because he puts up a warning notice? Surely the occupier should do more than that. In such circumstances it might well be right for an occupier to take greater precautions against injuries to trespassers than the occupier of, say, an ordinary house and garden ought to take towards his invited visitors. For instance, it might be more important to see that a well is fenced against trespassers than that the bannisters of a staircase are in good repair for guests. It is for this very reason that the whole aim of the Bill is to give the fullest discretion to the courts. I hope that, with what I have said, the noble Viscount will see fit to withdraw his Amendment, though I will undertake to look at this whole matter before the Report stage.

LORD SALTOUN

There is just one point on which the noble Lord did not touch. There is a very old adage which has always been dinned into my ears until I am sick of it: Justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. The general public have a firm conviction that most judges are reasonable men, and they are perfectly convinced that a judge will take a reasonable view of an occupier's liability. I am sorry to say that the general public are not convinced that a jury will take a reasonable view in every case, and I should be very interested to learn the view of Her Majesty's Government on what would be "reasonable precautions" in the case of a place like Ben Nevis.

LORD FORBES

As has already been said, I cannot go into the question of judges and juries to-day, as that matter is at present being considered, and I cannot, of course, prejudge the issue.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken and, of course, to Her Majesty's Government for their answer. I thought I was going to have to say that I was sorry the answer was so unsympathetic, but I am delighted that the noble Lord has said he will look at this matter again. I am sorry that the clause I have suggested is so full of mistakes; and I should not dream of disagreeing with the two noble and learned Lords on the Cross Benches over the particular mistakes they pointed out. The crux of the matter is this. I believe that the present law is that there is a specified and very low liability towards trespassers as such. We are now bringing in this Bill which produces merely a standard of reasonable care in the circumstances. What we are afraid of is that the "reasonable care" standard that will be laid upon an occupier will result in a higher liability towards the trespasser than we have had heretofore. Therefore, I really think this is something that ought to be looked at again. I, of course, will not dream of pressing this Amendment as such, but I hope that the noble Lord will succeed in finding some answer to this matter on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 [Landlord's liability by virtue of responsibility for repairs]:

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS had given Notice of three Amendments, the first being at the beginning of subsection (1) to insert: Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section". The noble Viscount said: With the Committee's indulgence, I will speak to the next three Amendments together because they are really on the same point. I am afraid that on Second Reading I brought up these two rather detailed matters which perhaps should have been reserved for this stage, and I must confess that I was not altogether satisfied with the answer that I received on that occasion. I am afraid it was perhaps because I had not given proper notice of them. The point is this. The landlord, when he is under a lease to maintain and repair, is not liable for defects on the premises unless he knows about them. That view was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm. If the landlord does not know about them and the tenant does, it may well be that the tenant would in fact not have shown reasonable care. But it seemed from speeches on the Second Reading that this is by no means certain. What I seek to do is to lay upon the tenant in the cases where he knows there is something wrong the duty to tell the landlord that this is so; because otherwise, as I explained on Second Reading, I am afraid that there may be cases where the person who is injured should have reparation but does not get any, because the duty of the tenant was not clear. Therefore I am seeking to insert in the Bill, by this Amendment, a specific duty on the tenant to make quite sure that the land-lord knows about these defects on the premises. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 26, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section,").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD REID

Perhaps as I said a word of two previously I might add a further word. I, of course, entirely sympathise with the desires of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and it would be very desirable that there should be no loopholes. But I think the position really is all right, because the tenant is the occupier and the primary liability is on him. If he knows about some defect and does nothing at all, then I should have no hesitation in saying that he has failed to exercise the care which he ought to have exercised towards his visitors. He can do one or other of two things. If the duty is on him to repair, then obviously he must repair; but if the duty is not on him to repair, then common sense demands that he shall tell the landlord as soon as possible so as to get the thing put right. In most cases he would do it in his own interest, but perhaps he is not much interested. But, even so, he knows that he is inviting people in, or people are coming who he knows may be injured. He knows he has a duty to take such care as the circumstances allow towards them; and in those circumstances, where an occupier knew of a defect but failed to intimate to the landlord that he wanted it put right, I do not think any jury would say that that occupier had fulfilled his duty. Therefore, I think that in this case there really is no loophole that has to be stopped up.

LORD FORBES

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, for explaining so well why it is not necessary to accept this Amendment. I would just go one stage further and say that I believe that this Amendment might have the opposite effect to that intended by the noble Viscount. Let us consider the case, as may happen under the terms of a particular lease, where the onus is on the landlord to remedy any defect, whether he has been notified of the defect or not—it happens that sometimes the whole onus is on the landlord. In that case the proposed new subsection might be held to cut clean across the terms of the lease and to restrict the landlord's obligations. I suggest that this is another example of the dangers of trying to cater for particular cases, and I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am grateful again to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, and to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes. That is, in fact, exactly the answer I hoped to get; and it is only because it was perhaps not quite so clearly expressed on Second Reading that I thought I ought to put down this Amendment. However, I am glad the position is now quite clear, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to subsection (4): ; and 'tenancy under which the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the premises' shall include a tenancy under which the landlord is under an obligation to renew and replace fixtures during the term of the demise.

The noble Viscount said: This concerns the other point that I raised on Second Reading, and again, if I may say so, I do not think the answer I received was altogether clear; therefore I hope that it may be extended this afternoon. The situation I envisage is this. A landlord who is under liability in his lease to repair and maintain has an obligation put upon him by this clause. There are, however, cases of leases where the landlord does not expressly say he will repair and maintain—in fact, that obligation may be upon the tenant—but what the landlord retains unto himself is the liability to replace and renew fixtures during the terms of the lease. What I want to know is this: in such a case will he have the same liability if injury is suffered as the result of a defect in one of the fixtures which he has undertaken to replace and renew, and the injury is caused by a defect which ought to have been put right by him under that liability? I do not think it particularly matters whether this Amendment is phrased …'tenancy under which the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the premises' shall include", or whether I say, "shall not include". The point is that I want it made quite clear that this is, in fact, the case and it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government under this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 47, at end insert ("; and 'tenancy under which the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the premises' shall include a tenancy under which the landlord is under an obligation to renew and replace fixtures during the term of the demise.")—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM

On Second Reading I was not entirely clear what the noble Viscount had in mind, but seeing now the Amendment that he is proposing I have no doubt in saying that I do not think that there is any real trouble about the matter. In Scotland there are two forms of lease: an urban lease—that is to say, the lease of a dwellinghouse—and an agricultural lease. But if a landlord Is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the premises, that certainly includes an obligation to renew and replace what is part of the premises—that is to say, the fixtures. You cannot dissociate the fixtures attached to the premises from the premises themselves; and if the obligation is to be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the premises, I should not think there is the slightest doubt that that would cover fixtures, which are a part of the premises. He will be bound to renew and replace these, if they require renewal and replacement, just as much as he is responsible for general maintenance and repair.

LORD FORBES

Once more, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm, for answering the noble Viscount so adequately. I hope the noble Viscount will now be able to withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am afraid not quite, because it is not exactly the point I had in mind—and I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm, will forgive me when I say this. I envisage the sort of tenancy where the landlord is not under a liability to maintain and repair the premises but is under a liability to replace and renew fixtures, in which case there seems to me to be a certain amount of doubt whether the liability under the clause will apply to him.

LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM

I must confess that I never heard of such an obligation. I cannot myself quite appreciate how a landlord is liable to repair and maintain fixtures, which are part of the premises, and is not liable to repair and maintain the premises generally. It is not a case I have ever come across; and unless the noble Viscount has an actual case in mind, I must confess I shall not think that there is anything whatever in this Amendment. I say so, with all respect to the doubts and difficulty that the noble Viscount has; but I think that really his doubts are without any solid foundation.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I am in a deeper fog. In all the leases with which I am connected I think fireplaces and grates would normally be considered fixtures; but the fireplaces and grates are the tenants' property, and when the lease changes they are taken over at valuation by the incoming tenant. Who is responsible, for what, to whom?

LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM

I am not going to offer opinions upon legal questions. I do not think that that is really the point that is covered by this Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

If there is no such animal, I am sorry; but I was under the impression that this sort of lease did exist. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, would once more see whether there is anything in what I say. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

House resumed.