9° Aprilis, 1924.]

[Continued.

856. Yes. I called attention to the Memorandum in a previous Bill and the Committee thought it should be altered. -(Mr. Vallance.) The wording was something to the effect of reproducing in a consolidated form.

Chairman.

857. Yes, the words were in the Health Bill.-(Sir Frederick Liddell.) The Memorandum will probably disappear altogether.

Chairman.] But still there is something in that, to put it in the form that we settled the other day.

Mr. Foot.

858. Are you telling my Lord how the order of consolidation is decided? There are, I understand, many laws to be consolidated and some urgency has been attached to the consolidation of the laws relating to real property. Is there any reason why this measure should be taken before that?-The real property measures are not ready, that is the reason. 859. And a very good reason?

Chairman.

860. I suppose one Bill will be ready before another, will it not?-No; they will be all ready simultaneously. Mr. Justice Romer is chairman of a Committee which is considering the Bills at the present moment. I am a member of that Committee. He hopes to finish on Saturday. There will be a certain amount of work after the Committee have finished in getting the decisions of the Committee into shape, but I should hope that the Bills will be ready for introduction at the beginning of May.

861. Will there be amending Bills also? -There will be a long amending Bill containing all the amendments. The amending Bill will contain such amendments in the law as are necessary to make the Bills consolidating Bills and not amending Bills.

Mr. Foot.

862. Do I understand that there would be an amending Bill and then a consolidating Bill?-They will be introduced simultaneously. The consolidating Bills will assume that the amending Bill has

51244

passed and will say that they represent the law if the amending Bill were passed.

863. That almost necessarily means that the work of consolidation cannot be completed until very late this year?Late this session.

864. Yes, late this session ?—I should hope by July. Of course it all depends upon how far the House of Commons and the House of Lords want to go into the amending Bill. If they are going to consider the amending Bill in detail, I should not think it would pass at all this session.

865. It is a question, of course, of other pressure upon the House. Probably it is known that the Attorney-General did make an announcement in the House a week or so ago, that having regard to the unexpected delay in the work of consolidation consequent upon the change of Government it would be to probably necessary postpone the operation of the Law of Property Act from the 1st January, 1925 to the 1st January, 1926?-That will be so anyhow. A promise was given I think that there should be a clear year between the passing of the Consolidation Bills and the time when they come into operation.

866. Unfortunately no promise has yet been given in the House. The AttorneyGeneral said he thought it would be necessary for him to submit an amending Bill postponing the operation of the measure, and I asked him in a supplementary question if that announcement could be made as soon as possible, 60 that the convenience of the profession might be met.

Lord Askwith.] Did he agree that he would make the announcement as soon as possible?

Mr. Foot.

867. He said in his answer that he recognised the inconvenience that was being caused, but even then no announcement was made. The sooner that announcement is made the sooner the profession will know where they are?-I have no doubt that the Attorney-General is waiting for the report of Mr. Justice Romer's Committee. One of the questions referred to Mr. Justice Romer's Committee is whether any postponement is necessary, and if so, to what extent. G4

[Continued.

868. Probably a Question put down next time may enable the AttorneyGeneral to answer it?-The Committee will not have reported next week.

869. Soon after Easter?-Probably. Chairman.] I think it is practically certain that the Law of Property Act will be postponed for a year. It will need an Act of Parliament, of course, but it is impossible to suppose that anybody will oppose it.

Mr. Foot.] I should imagine not; nobody in the House knows very much about it.

Chairman.

870. Then would you just say a word, Sir Frederick, on the last paragraph on page 3. I assume the Committee adopt the arrangement under which the Bill has been drafted. You were saying that [arious expressions are different in different Acts, and that you have had to assimilate them ?-We have done as much as we can to assimilate them, but I have received this morning a sheaf from Mr. Bowen who suggests further assimilations. He points out for instance that there are five different expressions used for two classes of houses:-"Unfit for human habitation "; so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation"; "in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation"; "fit for human habitation "; dangerous or injurious to health or unfit for human habitation ". I only received this letter this morning and I really have had no time to consider it. Mr. Bowen takes a great interest in the drafting of Acts of Parliament.

Lord Askwith.

66

871. We shall not reach the definitions to-day, shall we?-I do not think so.

Chairman.

872. I think what we had better do is to adopt Sir Frederick Liddell's drafting in that respect, leaving it open to him after he has had time to look at this matter, to bring up any question that occurs to him, or that he thinks ought to be brought to our attention ?-If your Lordship pleases.

873. Then on the middle of page 4 just before you begin your Note on Clause 1,

there is a very good paragraph which describes what the Notes are and how the Bill follows them: "The following Notes call attention "-perhaps you would just read the paragraph?-" The following Notes call attention to cases where there has been any substantial departure from the language of the existing Acts, or where difficulties have been experienced in determining what the effect of the existing law is. Clauses with respect to which there is no note are all clauses which reproduce the enactments mentioned in the margin either verbatim or pratically verbatim or with alterations of a purely drafting nature."

Chairman.] Upon that I would just like to ask the Committee what they think is the best course for us to take. We have got this Housing Bill for England and we have also got the Housing Bill for Scotland, and there are a great many clauses the same in the two Bills. The Notes on the English Bill in many cases cover the points that arise on the corresponding clauses in the Scotch Bill. My suggestion is that when we have disposed of an English clause and find it is one and the same kind that appears in the Scotch Bill, we should take a note of it or ask Sir Frederick to take a note of it, and then, when we come to go through the Scotch Bill and those clauses have been practically dealt with already, we shall be able to pass them without further observation. Do you agree to that.

(Agreed.)

On Clause I.

Chairman.

874. Clause 1 of the Bill corresponds to Clause 1 in the Scotch Bill. Would you tell us what are the points in your Note to which you attach importance, Sir Frederick? I think the principal question is about Section 75 of the Act of 1890. It has a curious result mentioned in the last three lines of the Note: "The Act of 1909 clearly authorised the making of such leases, to reproduce Section 75 of the Act of 1890 in this Bill would be to make them illegal." Would you tell us what you think on the point?-(Sir Frederick Liddell.) Section 75 of the Act of 1890 made it a condition of every contract of letting for human habitation made after 1885, I think it was, that the

9 Aprilis, 1924.]

[Continued.

house was reasonably fit for human habitation. In 1909 that was extended and not only was that condition implied but the letting was also made to include an undertaking to keep the house in all respects fit for human habitation during the continuance of the lease; but there was an exception to that section of the Act of 1909 in favour of leases for three years and upwards. The real question is how far the Act of 1909 superseded Section 75 of the Act of 1890 to which I have referred. It did not expressly repeal it, but, being a later Act, I suggest it has practically repealed it, especially because if Section 75 was still in operation, that provision in the Act of 1909 about leases of three years or upwards would not operate at all.

Lord Blanesburgh.

875. That is to say that after the Act of 1909 if a house suitable for habitation by persons of the working classes is let on a lease exceeding three years then there is no obligation upon the landlord to repair and keep in repair-those statutory obligation?-No, there would be a statutory obligation unless the clause contained an obligation upon the tenant to keep the house in repair.

I

876. Section 75 reads in this way: "" In any contract made after the 14th day of August, 1885, for letting for habitation by persons of the working classes a house or part of a house there shall be implied a condition that the house is at the commencement of the holding in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation." understood you to say that the landlord should keep in repair during the tenancy? -Yes, but in the Act of 1909, Section 14, there is this: "but the condition aforesaid shall not be implied when a house or part of a house is let for a term of not less than three years upon the terms that it be put by the lessee into a condition reasonably fit for occupation, and the lease is not determinable at the option of either party before the expiration of that term." Those words are at the end of Section 14. Section 14 extended the class of house to which the condition applied.

877. Only in cases of houses of certain rentals. Apparently Section 75 of the Act of 1890 still remains operative in the case of houses of over that rental. In the case for instance, of London, the section

applies to a house not exceeding £40?Yes; it is a much higher rental.

Mr. Foot.

878. How was the point not dealt with? -Was it discussed at all in the passing of the Act of 1909 ?-I do not think so.

879. The discrepancy was unnoticed? -I think so. It is quite possible that the provision about the three years' lease was put in as an amendment.

Lord Blanesburgh.

880. Which did you say was the Statute under which the condition in Section 75 was made applicable?-Section 15 of the Act of 1909.

Chairman.

881. It is the old question as to whether it is going too far in our consolidation work, to omit that section?-Yes, whether the Act of 1909 superseded the Act of 1890 or only extended the Act of 1890, leaving the Act of 1890 still in operation with regard to the lower rented class of house.

Lord Blanesburgh.

882. Higher rented class of house, is it not?—No—leaving the Act of 1890 still in operation.

883. With regard to a higher rented class of house, because it says "not ex ceeding £40"-that is to say, £40 ΟΙ under?-Yes.

884. It is difficult to think of a house for the working classes which would be over £40?-The Act of 1890 clearly remained in operation in regard to contracts for letting made before the Act of 1909. The Act of 1909 only applied to contracts for letting made after that Act. Of course all the leases made before 1909 have long ago expired in this class of house.

Chairman.] What do you think, Lord Blanesburgh? ?

[Continued.

in the country which are let at a rental exceeding £26, and al other houses exceeding £16-not that there will be any houses fit for the working classes which are let at such high rents as these but it does not seem that Section 14 of the Act of 1909 affects those at all, if there be any?-No, it does not.

886. But it almost seems a contradiction in terms that there should be, because the rents would be so high.-The Act of 1890 only applies to houses to which the compounding rating provisions applied.

887. In that way you do get rid of it altogether. There can, under the Act of 1890 be no house in London exceeding £40 to which the Act of 1890 applies?No. It was £20 in 1890 in London, £13 in Liverpool, £10 in Manchester and £8 elsewhere, and those have been subsequently raised.

888. So that the position comes to be this, that except with regard to contracts made before the passing of the Act of 1909, the Act of 1890 in this respect seems to be gone and there can be none now?— No.

889. There is no doubt about that point, is there that there can be no house under the Act of 1890 which is not covered by the provision of the Act of 1909 in relation to a tenancy that has now expired?—No, except that the Act of 1909 does not apply to a house where a contract for tenancy is for a term certain of three years and the tenant has undertaken to put the house in repair; whereas apparently the Act of 1890 did apply to such a house. There is no such exception in the Act of 1890.

Earl of Onslow.

890. That is the proviso is it not?— Yes.

Lord Blanesburgh.

891. Have we not got to consider this a little more? The way in which I understand Sir Frederick to put it is this, that there is in section 14 of the Act of 1909 a proviso which excepts from the operation of that section houses in respect of which there is an obligation upon the part of the lessee to put the house into repair, and the lease is not

In

determined at the option of either party before the expiration of that term. that case Section 14 has nothing to do with it all; but Sir Frederick points out that that Section 75 of the Act of 1890 might still apply to that case. If we therefore sweep that away, we are sweeping away the operation of that Statute in relation to a case excepted from the Act of 1909.-Yes, unless there has been a implied repeal, that the Act of 1909 superseded Section 75 of the Act of 1890 as regards contracts made after the Act of 1909.-(Mr. Gwyer.) By implication.

892. If the two can live together, I suppose they ought to be allowed to exist together, even on terms of hostility.— (Sir Frederick Liddell.) They could live together.

893. The fact that this only applies to contracts made after the passing of this Act would be used as an argument that with regard to contracts made after this section there is a qualified operation but not a complete operation so as entirely to extinguish the effect of the Act of 1909.-You might have both Acts applying.

894. They could live together in a way. -It could be done by putting words into the proviso to the effect that it was not to apply to the lower rented houses to which Section 75 of the Act of 1890 applies, making the proviso 1 on the top of page 2 not apply to these lower rented houses.

Mr. Foot.

895. Before 1909 although there was a statutory obligation upon the landlord, was that obligation not negatived by a lease between the parties.-No, because the Act of 1903 provided that section 75 was to apply whether there was an agreement to the contrary or not. That is one of the points which Mr. Bowen raises and says that we have not reproduced it here.

896. It was not open to a man taking a house of a low rental to enter into such an arrangement with the landlord which the landlord could enforce.-No, he was not open to enter into an agreement to put the house in repair.

897. Landlords seem to have had fewer rights in those days than they have now.

Of course it is very unlikely that anv tenant of those low rented houses would ever enter into such a contract.

[Continued.

Chairman.

898. You think Mr. Bowen's point is a good point on that?-No, this is not Mr. Bowen's point, it is my own point. Mr. Gwyer suggests that the clause represents practically the state of the law whatever the theoretical state of the law may be.

Lord Blanesburgh.

899. The only thing about the memorandum on Clause 1 is that the point taken by Sir Frederick-if you were the draftsman of the memorandum-is that the point we have got to be careful to notice is that Section 14 of the Act of 1909 only applies to contracts made after the passing of that Act.-Yes.

900. And you point out that there would be very few contracts made before the passing of that Act now in existence. The present difficulty we are discussing is apart from that altogether.-Yes.

901. That is the only result of our additional discussion, that there does seem to be a point outstanding which is not going to be carried forward into our consolidation Bill under the Act of 1890, and the question is whether we can go on without reproducing it.

Chairman.] Yes, that is the question. Mr. Foot.] Under the old law such an arrangement could not be entered into between a working-class tenant and a landlord.

Lord Blanesburgh.] Nor can it under the new law.

Mr. Foot.

902. Cannot it be entered into now?That is one of the points Mr. Bowen has raised, whether we ought not to reproduce in this clause a provision of the Act of 1903 which applies to section 75 of the Act of 1890, that the section is to have effect notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.

Chairman.

903. That is what I was thinking about? Mr. Bowen says that the Act of 1903 provided that section 75 was to apply whether there was an agreement to the contrary or not, and by the marginal note at any rate of section 14 of the Act of 1909 it is to be treated as an extension of section 75 of the Act of 1890.

904. I have thought myself that the effect of section 14 of the Act of 1909 was that it was irrespective of agreement except in the cases specified in the proviso, without any doubt at all?_ Yes.

905. To that extent only, but unless you come within the proviso then you are under the section whether you have contracted otherwise or not? Yes.

906. I should have thought that was the real effect of it.-Yes.

907. But it does allow contracting out in that case only, and if we did not retain it we should be altering the law? -Yes.

Lord Blanesburgh.

908. I wonder whether we might try to puzzle out this rather troublesome question of how much of section 75 of the Act of 1890 remains, in order to see whether we can give it the go-by-irrespective of the point that the Act of 1909 applies only to contracts made after the passing of the Act. I feel sure we could make the jump that Sir Frederick invites us in the Note to make, because we would all, I think, assume that all the contracts which had been part of the Act of 1909 had expired, so that point is not really serious?-It is only an obligation to put a house in repair at the commencement of the tenancy and the right of enforcing that must have exexpired.

909. The question we have got to consider is whether there is left outstanding under Section 75, irrespective altogether of the date of the tenancy, something which is not going to be carried into the new Bill as it stands? Yes.

Chairman.] I think it is so. I do not think you can get out of it-that there is something outstanding.

Lord Blanesburgh.

910. All I was thinking was that if you do attempt to carry forward into the new Bill that which is left outstanding you will probably bring into existence a very comic clause?-I think it could be done all right by limiting the proviso to houses to which Section 75 of the Act of 1890 did not apply.