HC Deb 20 February 1929 vol 225 cc1163-97
Mr. W. ADAMSON

I beg to move, in page 29, line 32, to leave out the words "or sanitary inspector."

Unless this Amendment is accepted serious consequences may arise in a number of what are called small burghs, but which nevertheless have a considerable population. These burghs may be deprived of the services of whole-time sanitary inspectors, a serious matter for them, and I hope the Under-Secretary of State will accept the Amendment. If the control of this work passes into the hands of the county councils, a county council may appoint a chief sanitary inspector for the whole of the county, and in his wisdom he may send a sanitary inspector to one part of the county one day and to another part of the county another day. That in my opinion would be a retrograde step, and might have serious consequences. I know a number of these small burghs where there is plenty of work for a full-time sanitary inspector if the health of the people is to be properly attended to. The Amendment is one of substance and deserves, I think, favourable consideration.

Mr. W. M. WATSON

I hope the Under-Secretary of State is going to accept the Amendment. I do not think the position of these smaller burghs has been sufficiently considered by the Government, and, before the Amendment is brushed aside I hope their position will be considered more carefully. In some of these burghs there is sufficient work for a full-time sanitary inspector; in others the offices of sanitary inspector and burgh surveyor are combined and the official finds sufficient work to do. The proposal is that as the position of sanitary inspector within these smaller burghs becomes vacant the sanitary inspector for the county is to be the sanitary inspector of the burgh. What is to he the position in those burghs where the offices of sanitary inspector and surveyor are combined? Is the burgh still to go on with a full-time burgh surveyor after his work has been cut in half? If that is the case it will mean more expenditure for these smaller burghs. That is an aspect of the matter which, I think, requires more consideration. It will not mean any saving, as far as these burghs are concerned, but an increased expenditure, because they will have to retain their burgh surveyors in order to attend to the work of water supply, drainage, housing, and other duties, which are properly regarded as the functions of a burgh surveyor. This official will have to be retained by these burghs and, in addition, they will be called upon to pay a certain amount towards the expenses and maintenance of the county sanitary inspector. I hope the Government will consider this aspect of the matter.

I deny that there will be any increased efficiency under the scheme in the Bill because you may have the sanitary inspector of the county residing many miles from a burgh which requires a sanitary inspector to be resident in the burgh itself; and where there has been a sanitary inspector for many years before you will only get a few flying visits from the county sanitary inspector. So many duties have been imposed on sanitary inspectors that in any burgh of any size at all, from 5,000 to 10,000 in population, there is sufficient work for a sanitary inspector. I hope that the matter will be considered further by the Government, and that this small concession will be granted. So far as the medical officer of health is concerned, we raise no objection. As a matter of fact the tendency for many years has been for the smaller burghs to appoint the county medical officer as the medical officer for those burghs, hut the Under-Secretary cannot say that the county sanitary inspectors have been asked to come in and undertake sanitary duties within the burghs.

Sir ROBERT HORNE

I would reinforce the views which have been expressed by hon. Members opposite. I agree that it may be a proper thing for a medical officer of health of a burgh to be the county council medical officer also, because the latter is an appointment with wide ramifications and the medical officer employs a large number of people under his guidance to deal with questions of health in the county. But when you come to the questions of sanitation in any particular district, it seems to me apparent that you have a business which is purely local. When you consider the question of the sanitation of a small burgh there is obviously quite enough for any one man to do. I am accordingly very strongly of opinion that while it is quite right that the medical officer should he a person with a large variety of duties and with people under him, in connection with sanitation yell have a localised matter, and the sanitary inspector should be a person whose duty it is to look after the particular area with Which he is concerned. Take the smallest of the burghs. There is room for a sanitary inspector to look after the health of the community there. I think that sanitary inspection should he excluded from the ambit of this Clause.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON

I agree with what has been just said. Many of these burghs have a population as big as 17,000, and it is a full-time job for any one man to look after the health conditions. Of course much depends on the kind of burgh. There is the burgh of the residential type and the burgh of the industrial type. When you have congested areas, as in many of our burghs, the work of the sanitary inspector is certainly a whole-time job. We are looking forward and are hoping for better conditions in the general sanitation of Scotland. The well-being of out burghs, especially the industrial burghs, depends very largely on the supervision and the activity of the sanitary inspector in pointing out defects and preparing the way for improvement.

Major ELLIOT

Of course, this is a matter of argument, but I hope to be able to adduce reasons which will lead the Committee to support the Government in the view expressed in the Clause. The position is not exactly as some of my hon. Friends seem to have conceived it. They have all spoken as though, at the present time, there were full-time men employed on this work. At any rate all have said that there is enough work for a full-time man in looking after the affairs of each individual burgh.

Sir R. HUTCHISON

Some burghs.

Major ELLIOT

And that even the smallest burghs have room for a full-time appointment. One hon. Member said that the practice which had recently grown up, of the county medical officer acting in the burghs, found no parallel in the case of the county sanitary officer. I ask the Committee to consider the actual figures. Of 179 small burghs in Scotland 26 have appointed the county sanitary officer to act for them, 106 have full-time officers, and 47 have part-time sanitary inspectors. It is, therefore, by no means the general thing to have a whole-time officer looking after the sanitary affairs of one of the smaller burghs.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman include as part-time men those who are also burgh surveyors?

Major ELLIOT

Undoubtedly. I ask hon. Members, and particularly my medical colleagues in the House, to consider the position of a sanitary officer. That position is growing more difficult than it was a few years ago. It is becoming more and more a technical and highly skilled appointment. It is of great importance to get whole-time skilled men into these important posts. Some of the correspondence which the Board have had in recent years shows that some of the smaller burghs do not by any means rise to the modern conception of good sanitation. I have in mind the case of a burgh which appointed as a sanitary inspector a man who doubled that task with the duties of caretaker of the local burial ground. That is a most unsuitable part-time occupation. There are other similar examples. On the Board we have done our utmost for years to raise the status of the sanitary officer, and to make it clear that the position is not less important, but in some ways more important, than that of the medical officer of health. We have done our utmost to secure that the officers appointed shall be holders of the sanitary inspector's certificate of the Royal Sanitary Association of Scotland.

These are posts which it is much more suitable to have held as whole-time appointments, but we find that in practice the appointments have not been held as whole-time appointments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) stressed the intimate and domestic nature of sanitation and the desirability of a close association of the sanitary officer with the locality. With that view we all agree. But it should be remembered that a duty of the sanitary officer is to report, and in some cases to report against the very people, in the smaller authorities, who directly employ them. That is a very invidious position in which to put a man.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Is it not the case that the county sanitary officers are in the direct employment of the county councils, the members of which are also property owners?

Major ELLIOT

But my hon. Friend has failed to grasp the importance of the position of a whole-time sanitary officer who cannot be removed from his position without the consent of the Board of Health.

Mr. JOHNSTON

It is the same in the burghs.

Major ELLIOT

The sanitary inspector there cannot be removed from his part-time employment as a sanitary officer but he can be sacked from one of the other employments which he may hold.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Has he ever been?

Major ELLIOT

We have known cases of pressure being brought to bear, and anyone who has seen such pressure applied knows that it can have effect in other ways than in dismissal. I ask the Committee to address itself to the very important matter of public health, and not to be deterred by the question of the prestige of this or that local authority. It is a matter of first-rate importance that the sanitary inspectors of the future should first of all be men of high technical qualifications, and, secondly, that they should be men of independence, not removable and not even subject to pressure from the very persons against whom they may have to report. These objects can be attained, first of all, by making sure that the area over which a man operates is wide enough to secure a first-rate man, and, secondly, by making the appointment a whole-time appointment, so that the man is not subject to any pressure from those against whom he reports.

If we are all agreed on those points, I ask the. Committee to agree that the method of the Clause is the most suitable method. There is no disturbance of existing appointments, and nothing will happen until one of the appointments becomes vacant, but on a vacancy arising it should be filled by a man of high qualifications who will devote his whole time to the work. When we have done that we shall, of course, do our utmost to see—it is possible for us to secure it—that the man preserves local touch and resides in the area where his main activities will be conducted, and that he is not kept out of touch with the area by being sent there only occasionally on flying visits. This is riot a party point, but is a question as to the best machinery for raising the sanitary level of the burghs of Scotland, and I claim that here and now we have an excellent opportunity of raising that level.

Sir R. HUTCHISON

How on earth can a man who has a large landward area to cover deal with burghs like Arbroath, Montrose and Brechin? How can he find the necessary time for the work? It would be physically beyond him.

Major ELLIOT

It is not suggested for a moment that a man will be made to cover a whole county such as Lanark or Fife. He will work with assistants.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON

It is clear that the Under-Secretary has no conception of the difficulties with which the local authorities are faced. He has given figures to show that a large proportion of sanitary inspectors in the employment of burghs are only part-time officers, and do not devote the whole of their time to the sanitary work of those burghs. But surely it is obvious that the county sanitary inspectors whom the Bill proposes to appoint to look after the affairs of the burghs will themselves be able to devote only part of their time, and a very small part of their time, to the small burghs. So that in future, under this system, there will be less time spent by the sanitary officers upon the sanitary affairs of the burghs. That is the gravamen of the charge against the Clause. When the Bill was drafted it was proposed to take away from the small burghs powers which later on the Secretary of State saw fit to let them retain. For example, it was proposed to take away drainage from them, and all the consequences of that. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman has retained in the Bill a Clause which would have been suitable if he had been taking away from the local authorities the sanitary work. He is leaving sanitary work to the control of the local council, and he is taking away from the council the official on whom it will depend for the operation of those sanitary duties.

I can scarcely credit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has ever spent five minutes in thinking of the actual administration of a small burgh. What does sanitary work mean? It means the proper supervision of back courts, the proper cleaning of streets, and, far more than that—I could state 20 things—the clearing away of nuisances, and the making of the place habitable and healthy for the people who live in the area. These duties are specifically preserved to the local authorities in the small burghs, yet the Government propose to take away from the small burghs the control of the one official upon whom they depend for the effective supervision of these duties. The hon. and gallant Gentleman never met that point. Will he tell us how any small burgh in future will be able properly to undertake its sanitary and health duties if its official is under the control of another body and not of the health committee of the small burgh? The thing is absolutely impossible.

Major ELLIOT

No. The man holding the position of burgh sanitary inspector is under the control of the sanitary committee of the small burgh.

Mr. JOHNSTON

No.

Major ELLIOT

But he is.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Under this Clause, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is taking power to hand over the appointment and control of the sanitary inspector to the county council.

Major ELLIOT

Oh, no. There is no suggestion in the Clause of abolishing the position of burgh sanitary inspector, and, whoever holds that position is under the control of the health committee of the burgh. The Clause only specifies that that person should be the same person as the county sanitary inspector.

Mr. JOHNSTON

The words of the Clause are these: He is to be the officer of the county council of the county.

The LORD ADVOCATE

The words are that he shall be appointed to the post.

Mr. JOHNSTON

It says that the sanitary inspector, being the officer of the county council of the county within which the burgh is situate, shall be appointed to the post. He is to be under the county council, and the small burgh in future has to pay a proportion of his salary to the county council; the county council has to distribute its sanitary officer and his duties over a large area in the county, including the small burghs.

Major ELLIOT

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), whom we are all so pleased to see back again to take part in our discussions; but really it cannot be denied that a part-time man, who is an officer of a burgh during the time that he is acting as officer of the burgh, is subject to the control of the burgh in so far as they pay his salary, order him about, and tell him what to do.

Mr. JOHNSTON

But after he is dead a new man is to be appointed, and he is not to be an officer of the burgh council.

Major ELLIOT

I was pointing out, not what would happen after he is dead, but that a man appointed to the position of burgh sanitary inspector is ordered about by the burgh council, is paid by them, and does what they tell him. The only point is that the burgh council cannot remove him, and they cannot remove him now.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Well, it is a case of hard swearing. I leave it to any hon. Member to read Clause 26 for himself. The Clause does not give the slightest indication of the interpretation which the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts upon it. Every local authority in Scotland, including the Convention of Royal Burghs—men who have spent their lives in the administration of the small burghs—believes that the interpretation of the Clause which I have given is the right one. I have never heard anyone, in discussing this Clause or this Bill, maintain that if the Clause is passed the sanitary inspector, who will be appointed by the county council and paid by the county council, less a contribution to his salary to be paid by the burgh, will be, in fact, the servant of the burgh. In tact, he will be no servant of the burgh at all.

Major ELLIOT

Let me ask the hon. Gentleman what is his interpretation of the position of the 26 county sanitary officers who are now acting as burgh men?

Mr. JOHNSTON

The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, if I understood him aright, in explaining this Bill stood at that Box and said that one of the reasons in justification for this Clause was that when the sanitary inspector was under the control of the small burgh he was subject to economic—I put it no higher than that—influences, which would be absent when he was in the employment of the county council.

Major ELLIOT

The hon. Member was speaking of part-time sanitary inspectors in burghs. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman—

The CHAIRMAN

I really think this discussion is getting a little wide.

Mr. JOHNSTON

I may be wrong and the hon. and gallant Gentleman may be right, but I should be very interested to hear what other hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the Committee think of this Clause. The right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne) suffered from no such delusion as that under which the Under-Secretary for State suffers. I shall be delighted if the hon. and gallant Gentleman can prove here that, after the passage of the Clause, if it passes as it stands, in fact sanitary inspectors will still remain under the direction and con- trol of the sanitary committees of the small burghs. It really is not so. When this Clause passes, the local authority—that is, the small burgh—which will still be charged with the duty of looking alter the health and sanitary conditions of the burgh, will find that the control of its officer is in other hands—the hands of the sanitary committee or health committee of the county council. That is an impossible position for any local authority to operate under, and I trust that on further consideration the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see his way to amend the Clause.

I want to dissipate one error which I see frequently creeps into the speeches of the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he is dealing with the public health parts of this Bill. He continually proceeds on the assumption that the initiation, control, and administration of public health in the small burghs is not so efficient as it is in the counties. Where does he get warrant for that? It is not in the public health statistics nor in the death-rate. We have a lower infantile mortality in the small burghs than in the counties. In the small burghs, the death-rates under five years, 10 years, 15 years and 25 years are lower than in the counties. It is only when you get into the higher ages that there is a lower death-rate in the counties; yet the counties ought to be healthier than the burghs. There is no warrant for the assumption, on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman proceeds, that these small burghs have neglected their duties in regard to public health in any way. My experience—and I have spent many years in all forms of local government and have been on all kinds of public bodies in Scotland—tells me that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is taking a retrograde step in regard to public health by proceeding upon the lines which he is now following.

I will give him one illustration. Two years ago in many parts of the country the control of milk and dairies was taken away from the small burghs and handed over to the counties. What was the result? When the burghs conducted inspections of milk and dairies, they had inspections at least four times a year, and tuberculous cows were inspected at least four times a year. Now, under the county councils—those beneficent bodies which the hon. and gallant Gentleman holds up before our eyes—there is no inspection four times a year; at the most, in some parts it takes place twice, and in other parts once a year. We know definitely of tuberculous cattle going for 11 months and supplying milk in our burghs since this alleged reform has taken place. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman truly said, this is a business matter, and I beg him to give further consideration to the important point that if you leave a local authority, whatever local authority it be, charged with the power of looking after the sanitary affairs of its area, you must leave that local authority in full charge of the official whom it pays and controls.

Captain FANSHAWE

I rise to support the Amendment. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir B. Horne) and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) have said. I was very pleased that the Secretary of State for Scotland was able to leave the control of sanitation in the hands of the small burghs. If that is done, I think that the small burghs should have men who are totally under their own control. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State that these officers will be entirely the sanitary inspectors of the small burghs. The small burghs will have a certain call upon their services, but they will not have an absolute call at all times. I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee that the sanitary services in the small burghs are at present carried out more efficiently than in the counties. I think that, at any rate for the present, we should leave the sanitary inspectors of the small burghs under the entire control of those people who have been elected to look after the conditions in those burghs.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

Here we have again evidence of the Government's suspicion of local governing authorities. The nights of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are upset by the nightmare of the local governing authorities bringing economic pressure to bear upon these unhappy officials in order to cramp and hamper the sanitary services. In view of the fear of the Government this is in the nature of a Safeguarding of Bureaucrats' Bill, but, in common with other hon. Members who have spoken, I believe in the local bodies. I believe that the local councils, by their close interest in their own concerns, produce the best results for the health of the county. I referred to this matter in a short speech on the first day of our Debates. I was glad that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) quoted actual health statistics showing, under every head, how admirably these local burgh authorities have carried out their work. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary said that 26 burghs had already appointed county officials to serve as burgh sanitary inspectors. That shows that where it is convenient, and where public advantage is served by such appointments, the Scottish burghs at present have no hesitation in making them. In other cases, however, it is very much better to appoint a local man who knows the burgh well and who can combine with the duties of sanitary inspector such obviously parallel duties as those of burgh surveyor.

That is a common practice, and I cannot see why a man who is intimately acquainted with all that concerns the burgh and takes a pride in the work should not be as efficient a sanitary inspector—even if he combines with that office the office of burgh surveyor—as a man who comes from the county and whose main interest must be the service of the county. It is a well-known truth that a man cannot serve two masters. If he has two masters he will serve the stronger; and a man serving a large and important county authority and drawing the most of his salary from that authority, will be guided by the instructions which he receives from that authority. He will serve their interests when and where those interests conflict with the interests of the burgh. It is absurd to say that a man is actually under the control of the burgh, because, when he passes the burgh boundary, he is nominally under that control, but when he goes outside the boundary again, he suddenly becomes the county sanitary inspector. It has already been stated that in large counties the sanitary inspector will employ assistants. Where there are five or six burghs in the county each of which has appointed the county inspector to be its inspector, those burghs may hardly ever see him in such cases. They will only see any of his assistants who can spare the time to visit them.

I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will reconsider this question. I have also in mind certain burghs in the West of Scotland which are holiday resorts. They are small burghs technically, but in the holiday season their population becomes swollen enormously. Consequently, they have developed important sanitary services, and have the very best sanitary and medical advice. Their services in this respect are in many cases better than the county services. I suggest that it would be ill-advised to interfere with the present arrangement, and I ask the Committee to leave these officers, not merely nominally, but actually, under the control of the burghs.

The LORD ADVOCATE

The desire of the Government is entirely for the improvement of the health of the people and of the sanitary administration of these districts. It occurred to us with the knowledge which he had that there are cases where it would be advantageous and more efficient to have a man who was a whole-time official, and who was paid as a whole-time official. That always makes it easier to get a better qualified man. In saying so one does not wish to throw any kind of aspersion on the many admirable instances of burghs which are working satisfactorily at present. But our desire and intention was to try to meet such cases as I have indicated. It was also clear that we should find cases where an equally good, if not a better arrangement would be to leave the existing condition of things as it is, and allow the burgh to continue carrying on its duties by means of its own independent sanitary inspector, or medical officer of health as the case may be. It was for that purpose that the qualification was put into the Clause giving the central department the opportunity of settling which was the better course.

I wish to make the intention of the Clause quite clear. The Clause provides that on any vacancy arising the county sanitary inspector should then be appointed to the post of burgh sanitary inspector, which is a statutory post, and he would be the burgh sanitary inspector just in the same way as regards control as either the whole-time or part-time sanitary inspector is at present. That is the intention of the Clause, and as far as I am a competent translator, it seems clear enough that that must be the meaning of the Clause. There is no repeal of any of the statutory provisions such as the Burgh Police Act of 1892 or the Public Health Act of 1897 which apply to the appointment and control of these officers in burghs. As regards the other points which have been raised, we are hampered here also by the regrettable absence of my right bon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I am perfectly willing, if the hon. Member will not press his Amendment at this stage, to reconsider the question of sanitary officers in the light of the discussion which has taken place. There may be room for distinction as regards cases where the sanitary officer is only a part-time officer and cases where the burgh is already employing a whole-time officer, but I suggest that the whole matter might be reconsidered.

Dr. SHIELS

I suggest that the form of the Amendment shows that it has not been put forward in any obstructive way. The question of the appointment of the medical officers of health has not been traversed at all, although we realise many burghs in Scotland will be reluctant to depart from the system of having their own medical officers, and undoubtedly many of these medical officers have done and are doing excellent work. Undoubtedly, it is the modern trend in public health to have larger administrative areas for the medical officers of health. Therefore we have not opposed the proposal in the Clause—which has a reservation—as regards medical officers of health. As regards sanitary inspectors, however, the position is quite different. I agree with the Under-Secretary that a sanitary inspector with a multiplicity of posts is not desirable. In some of the smaller burghs, where that is the position, no doubt the work could be more suitably done by the county officer. On the other hand, in my own division, for instance, there is the burgh of Mussel-burgh, which has a population of 17,500. It is ridiculous to say that a burgh like that has not sufficient work to occupy a full-time and highly-qualified officer. I had a conference with the representatives of that burgh, and while they were reluctantly agreeable to the medical officer part of this proposal, they definitely stated that they wished to retain their own sanitary inspector. If it is true that the sanitary inspector, as the Under-Secretary said, is going to be the servant of the burgh, why then should he not be appointed by the burgh? If he is going to be so closely identified with the burgh as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested, why not leave the arrangement for appointment as it is at present? I suggest that in reconsidering the matter, the Government should take into account the question of whether at least burghs of 10,000 and over should not be allowed to retain the privilege which they now have of appointing their own official to look after their own sanitary requirements.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I support the Amendment because a sanitary inspector's job is obviously a localised job. To take the case of my own county, I cannot imagine anything more absurd than to have a county sanitary inspector who might be away in a very distant part of the county when a ship came in to one of the ports requiring the attention of the sanitary inspector. Such a system would not work in seaside places like Dunoon which has as many as 40,000 people per week during the summer time or Oban which has something like 25,000. A large part of the sanitary work done in Argyll is done in towns which are widely separated, and there is no reason whatever why the sanitary inspector should be a county official. Such a system is hound to impair the efficiency of the service. At present I understand there are cases in which a small burgh may find it convenient to link itself up with the county for this purpose, but why should we put all the burghs into this cast-iron system? Indeed I am not sure that I would not be in favour of having sufficient elasticity in this matter to provide for separate medical officers also. Oban requires a medical officer of its own. Ships come in there, and if a ship comes in carrying disease of some kind it will be very awkward if the county medical officer is a long distance away. But if the medical officer can be represented by a local sanitary inspector the difficulty will be met to a large extent. I think the Amendment is quite wise. It does not prevent the burghs from making the arrangements with the county which they are at present able to make, and I think we ought to leave them the liberty which they now use so well. To do so will serve the purposes of the Bill and the interests of public health far better than the proposal in the Clause.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM

I ought to say on behalf of my colleagues in this part of the Committee that it would be impossible for us to accept the Lord Advocate's suggestion that our Amendment should be abandoned on the understanding that the matter will be reconsidered before the Report stage. As a result of the system under which we are working now, it has been the practice that in the event of an adverse judgment there was no further opportunity for any Debate. Accordingly, I rise to put one or two simple points which have emerged from the discussion. Under the Clause, according to the Under-Secretary, no existing appointment of a sanitary inspector is disturbed, but when vacancies occur the duties are transferred to the county officer, or the county officer becomes the sanitary inspector for the smaller burghs within the county area. Thus you will have a county sanitary inspector who will also be the officer, not for one small burgh, but it may be for a number of small burghs within the new territory under the Bill. It is perfectly clear that the Government are altering the position as it is at present in this important branch of sanitary administration, because, according to the Under-Secretary, the new county sanitary inspector responsible for these burghs in his area is not to run about into each district himself. According to my hon. and gallant Friend that officer is to work through assistants.

Let the Committee observe the difference between the position of these assistants under the Bill as it will apply and under the existing sanitary inspector in that district. My hon. and gallant Friend quite rightly said that the sanitary inspector is protected as regards the tenure of his office, and it is of very great importance that in these duties he should be safeguarded against the pressure of interested people; but, unless I am quite wrong, the new assistant in that area, that is, within the small burgh, will not be in that position at all. He is a mere assistant in that district of a sanitary inspector for the county, who is no doubt responsible and enjoys security of tenure, but the assistant is the immediate man on the spot who has actually to do the work, without having the same safeguard as his responsible officer.

Take it on the administrative side, and let me ask the Government a simple question. What are they going to gain administratively by this change? My hon. Friend says that assistants are to undertake the duties in these immediate localities, and you are not, therefore, going to save very much as regards your personnel if that is the state of affairs. Under the Government's own Bill they leave these sanitary duties to the small burghs, that is, to areas up to 20,000 population, and if you do that under this Bill, why not leave in the locality an effective man in charge who is protected as regards his tenure of office in the discharge of his often difficult duties, which sometimes run counter to local interests? That is a very much better proposition than the one which the Government have in mind, and in any case, in their own Clause, they themselves indicate that apparently they have perhaps numerous exceptional cases in mind, because a line in this Clause indicates that the Board may otherwise determine or may make some separate proposal Our case is, quite frankly, that the game is not worth the candle, from the Government's point of view, and they would do very much better, here and now, to agree to this Amendment and not leave us in the doubt of a succeeding Report stage and discussion, which, in fact, under the Guillotine, we may never receive.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I appreciate the difficulties of the Guillotine involved in my proposal, and we are, therefore, perfectly willing not to oppose the Amendment at this stage, on the understanding that there will be no breach of faith if we find ourselves then in the position once again of having to reinsert these words or to make some variations. If we are free to do what we like on the Report stage, I appreciate that it would be fairer for us not to oppose the Amendment now.

Mr. GRAHAM

So far as we are concerned, I would like to say at once that we are willing to have the Amendment inserted on that understanding.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Am I to understand that the Amendment is being accepted now?

The LORD ADVOCATE

On the footing that we shall be free to do what we like on Report.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will take info consideration that there is nothing that people in the district feel more than the question as to who is to be appointed. That is the sign of real power, and not to give them the control of the man who has to do the job is to give them the hone without the meat. You will incite the utmost indignation of the population if you deprive them of this legitimate power. After all, they are paying for the piper, and should be allowed to call the tune.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I assure my hon. and learned Friend that I am impressed by the importance of that point.

Mr. JOHNSTON

There was one statement which the Lord Advocate made with which I should not like him to assume that we were in agreement. He said there might be variations in this matter and that he might, as I understood it, make some suggestion of limit-in power to burghs with a certain population. I should like him to under stand that, so far as we are concerned, we are standing by the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said two things to which I wish to refer. He spoke first about the defects of dual control. Tremendous defects can accrue from dual control. His other statement was with regard to the power of a local authority over a sanitary inspector. I can visualise the case of a small burgh with a house factor as Provost and the next in power interested in milk. Hon. Members can see that there was a combination that the sanitary inspector would have to fight if he came up against it in carrying out his duties. I have known a case where they tried to dismiss a sanitary inspector who had taken action against them, and he at once got into touch with the Board of Health, which brought the thing right down to a sense of justice. I have had the experience of assistants unable, through economic fear, to make complaints where there was a chance of being bullied by a factor or a milkman.

Mr. WESTWOOD

If there is to be any reconsideration of this Amendment, trust that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will disabuse himself of the idea which he expressed that the officials of the county council will more effectively carry through the work of sanitation than the officials of the burghs. The experience which I have gained in connection with the county which I represent in this House proves conclusively, as the communications which I have had with the hon. and gallant Member himself show, that the sanitary inspectors in the burghs do their work far more efficiently than, in the county of Midlothian, they have ever attempted to do it. We have not had a single complaint from the burghs in connection with the work of the sanitary inspectors, but only recently, after four years' hard work, have we been able to get sanitary arrangements given effect to in the county. In the burghs, the work has been more effectively done by the sanitary inspectors than the sanitary inspectors already appointed by the county have ever attempted to do their work and I hope there will be no withdrawing from the position which, the Government have accepted.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I have not accepted it. I said we would not oppose the insertion of the Amendment.

Mr. WESTWOOD

All I am asking is that that lack of opposition shall continue until the Third Reading of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir R. HAMILTON

I beg to move, in page 29, to leave out from the word "then" in line 33 to the second word "the," in line 34.

It will be realised that this Amendment is moved in connection with a second Amendment in my name, in line 37, to leave out the word "shall." and to insert in its place the words: may with the consent of the town council of such burgh. The object of the Amendment is to leave freedom of choice to the burghs in the appointment of both the medical officer and the sanitary inspector. If the Clause were to stand as drafted, unless the Board otherwise agreed in any particular case, the officer holding the post of county medical officer or sanitary inspector would, in the event of a vacancy occurring in such post in the burgh, be ipso facto appointed for the burgh. But we desire that this appointment may be made with the consent of the town council of the burgh, and that it should be left to the burgh to say if they desire that the medical officer of the county should be appointed medical officer of the burgh. An hon. Member just now referred to what appeared to be the constant suspicion of the Secretary of State for Scotland of the local authorities in managing their own affairs. Surely the burghs of Scotland can be left to say whether they desire that any particular officer should be appointed to hold one of these posts. To me, the proposition is a self-evident one; and unless the Government have some very strong reasons to the contrary, which are not apparent on the face of the Clause, I hope the Committee will support my Amendment.

Sir R. HORNE

While I took a very definite view in favour of the previous Amendment, I am afraid I cannot agree to this one. It would he an admirable thing if you could get the consent of the local authority to every appointment made, but, on the other hand, suppose the burgh objects and refuses its consent, what is to be the course of the subsequent proceedings? There is no means suggested in the Amendment by which the matter can be resolved, and the result would be that you would have a medical officer for the county, you would have the burgh refusing to accept him, and there would be no medical officer for the burgh. As it seems to me, from the point of view of ordinary, practical, reasonable common sense, you must have it either one way or the other. You must either have the burgh entitled to appoint its own medical officer or, if the medical officer of the county is to be the person suggested to the town when a vacancy occurs, you must have some way of solving the difficulty if the burgh objects. My hon. Friend suggests no way in which that difficulty or trouble is going to be resolved, but as practical men we have to come down to a method by which it can be ensured that there is a medical officer in the burgh. Accordingly, while I have every sympathy with the view that it would be excellent to have the consent of the burgh to the appointment of the medical officer by a county, I do not see how practically it can le carried out; and, therefore, I should be inclined to oppose the Amendment.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN

In reply to the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) it is obvious that where the consent was not given it would be in the power of the burgh to appoint its own medical officer. That is the obvious solution of the difficulty.

Sir R. HORNE

Then that Amendment ought to have been moved earlier.

Mr. BROWN

I cannot agree. I agree with it being moved here. Take the position of a seaside resort tike Rothesay, highly organised from a health point of view, and, with all respect to the county medical officer of health, much more efficiently manned than the county. Surely it is a most anomalous position for a large and important seaside place like that, with an efficient medical staff, highly organised from the health point of view, the very lifeblood of the health resort depending on the efficacy of its medical staff, to put that place under the control, in regard to appointment, of a county authority which is not by any means as well organised, from the health point of view, as the burgh. Surely the Amendment is a perfectly workable one. The small burghs who cannot appoint a medical officer will fall in with the views of the Government, but when they are highly organised, they should have the right to appoint their own officer.

Sir R. HORNE

On a point of Order. The Committee have already passed the point at which it states that the medical officer of the county council is to be the chosen person in the event of a vacancy. It is too late, therefore, to suggest that the burgh shall still have the appointment of the medical officer in its own hands, and the only result of the Amendment must be that there would be no medical officer for the burghs.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

We are now on the first of the two Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R Hamilton), and that comes before the words covering the appointment of the medical officer.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

If the Amendment be carried, and the words are omitted, the medical officer of health and the sanitary inspector of the county council will still be appointed for the small burghs.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

Then would follow the subsequent Amendment of my hon. Friend—in line 37 to leave out the word "shall," and to insert instead thereof the words may with the consent of the town council of such burgh.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

The hon. Gentleman really argued these two Amendments together. If the one which he moved falls, the second cannot be moved.

Sir R. HAMILTON

I hope that I made that clear when I moved the Amendment.

Captain FANSHAWE

We have already agreed that the major health services shall be carried out by the county councils and shall not be allowed to be carried out by the town councils of the small burghs. I supported the Amendment with regard to sanitation, because we proposed to disqualify the small burgh from appointing an officer for a duty for which they are responsible. Here we are being asked to give the small burghs some say in the appointment of the medical officer, but it it unreasonable for them to have any say in that appointment when they are not responsible for the service.

Sir R. HUTCHISON

I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If this Clause be carried out, the burgh will have no voice whatever. We say that the burgh council ought to be consulted. Surely if the work of the medical officer is such an important part of the whole community of the large burghs, the smaller burghs, many of which double their population in the summer time, should have some say in the appointment.

Captain FANSHAWE

The burghs will certainly have a say in the appointment of the medical officer of the county in accordance with their representation on the county council.

Sir R. HUTCHISON

But there are existing county medical officers, and they will have had no share in their appointment. After all, the representatives of the town council who go on to the county council are of the same calibre as members who are elected for that body by the county area, but in many cases they have not voting powers. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary can assure me that the representatives of the burgh on the new county authority will have the power to vote on the appointment of a medical officer.

Major ELLIOT

Certainty; it is one of the functions which the new authority will exercise within the burgh, and they will have the right to vote for these men.

Sir R. HUTCHISON

It is a right and proper thing, too, but I can see trouble and friction being caused by this arbitrary appointment.

Sir R. HORNE

It will be worse if you refuse it.

Sir R. HUTCHISON

Not at all, because there is always the reference to a higher authority. I think that it will tend to a better state of affairs if the town council were given the power inside this Clause of some consultation with the county authority. After all, many of these burghs have got medical officers, some of them whole-time men, who are of superior calibre to some of the men who are appointed for the counties. They have to deal with a closer and denser population, and they have problems which never have to be faced by the county officer. In many ways they have to deal with different, problems. I hope therefore that some amelioration of this Clause will be made.

Mr. W. M. WATSON

I agree that the tendency of recent years in the smaller burgh has been to appoint the medical officer for the county as their medical officer; that tendency has been much more evident in the small burghs than in the larger burghs. The burghs of over 30,000 population have a right to a more substantial say in the appointment of the medical officer for those burghs. An interesting point has been raised in regard to the representation on the county council. Neither the Lord Advocate nor the Under-Secretary of State can deny that some burghs will only have indirect representation on the county council. In the scheme that, has been prepared there is a grouping of burghs, and a group is entitled to only one representative on the county council. In some areas the county council are proposing that that system shall be extended, for the grouping of the burghs has not gone far enough to please them, and the burgh representation on the county council has to be cut down to satisfy the landward members and to give them a greater say than the burgh representatives—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN

I do not think that the hon. Member can go into the whole question of representation of the burghs on the county council on this Amendment. It is in order to show how far the burgh representatives will in fact have some vote in the choice of the medical officer, but further than that we cannot go.

Mr. WATSON

I was trying to show that by this system of grouping burghs they will only have a direct say on the county council as to who shall be the medical officer. That is an important point, for it means that these burghs will have a medical officer imposed upon them without their having any direct say whether the officer is suitable or not. The Amendment is only reasonable in asking that the town councils of these burghs shall have a say in the appointment of the medical officer.

Major ELLIOT

I take it that the hon. Member who has just spoken was expressing an individual view, and was not speaking as the spokesman of his party, because I gather that the official view of the party, as expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels), is that the official Opposition approve of the proposal that the appointment of medical officers for the small burghs should fall to the medical officer for the county as vacancies arise. I want to deal with the extraordinary contention of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. W. M. Watson), that the burgh would only have an indirect voice in the appointment of the medical officer under this Clause. The people who go to the county council are exactly the same people as those who would choose the medical officer—

Mr. WATSON

Is it not a fact that under the scheme which is drafted in the White Paper burghs are grouped, and that only one representative from a group is sent to the county council? How can a burgh which has practically no representation on the county council have a say in the matter?

Major ELLIOT

The Chairman has ruled out of order any lengthy discussion on representation, but I would point out that the groups are of the smallest kind, and they will send considerable representation to the new authority. The mass of Members opposite and the mass of Members on this side are agreed that the appointment should follow the course laid down in the Clause. It is following out the practice of tradition and the development of public health work in Scotland. In over 100 cases it has been done. The case for the medical officer is much stronger than the case with regard to the sanitary inspector. It is the case of a man who has to deal with the major functions of health which are being transferred to a considerable extent to the new reconstituted county authority, and it would be an unworkable and retrograde step to accept the Amendment. It is not a line of policy which is carried out by small burghs now, for the system proposed in the Clause has been carried out by 100 out of 179 burghs affected.

6.0 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

I must say that I was very much amused by the exordium of the hon. and gallant Member. He has rallied the Opposition regarding this Amendment, and demanded to know what is their official party view on this question. When we were discussing the sanitary officers he was assuring the Committee that it was not a party question. I do not like to suggest that the support given to the Amendment about the sanitary inspector from the benches behind him may have had something to do with the attitude he takes up on whether this should or should not be a party question, but on the merits I cannot understand why the appointment of a sanitary officer should be a suitable occasion for a non-party discussion and the appointment of a medical officer not.

Major ELLIOT

I hope the hon. and gallant Member will realise that I was referring not so much to the party view as to the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels). I was taking his opinion as one medical man to another, and as the opinion of a man who carries a great deal of weight with myself, and must also carry weight with the whole House, in matters of health.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

The hon. and gallant Member now says that he takes the opinion of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh as one which carries great weight with himself. I say that I shall call the OFFICIAL REPORT in evidence, and that when he opens the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will find these words: The official party view of people opposite. I took them down the moment he spoke them. But, passing from that matter, I must say that I cannot understand this inveterate distrust of town councils among hon. Members opposite. [Interruption.] I see the Lord Advocate objects, but I repeat it—the inveterate distrust which hon. Members opposite are showing, on every occasion, towards the elected representatives of the burghs of Scotland.

Sir R. HORNE

Rubbish!

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Have you ever been a county councillor? I have. If you had been a town councillor you would not have so much enthusiasm. [Interruption.]

Sir A. SINCLAIR

All I can gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman is that he shares the distrust to which I have alluded; but that does not influence my view. I know three burghs intimately, and they are admirably managed. The people in Scotland, speaking generally, take a pride in the burghs in Scotland, and in the unpaid and voluntary services, unrewarded except by the gratitude of the electors, which the members of the councils give to those burghs. On this occasion there is less ground than on almost any other for this distrust, because, as the hon. and gallant Member himself has said, over 100 burghs in Scotland have already taken this step. That enormously fortifies the argument for this Amendment, because it shows that, where it is clear the public interest will be served, in 100 cases out of 179 the burghs have already taken this step. Where, then, is the evidence of obstruction and reactionary feeling? The burghs have shown that where they believe it would be an advantage to the public services they have been perfectly willing to take this step, and if it were allowed to be done voluntarily the same step would be taken in other cases. If we make it compulsory the step, when it is taken, will be taken with reluctance, with bad feeling, and with controversy on both sides. The medical officer will enter upon his duties with ill-feeling on the part of the burgh against the appointment, whereas if it had been a voluntary appointment he would have been met with good will.

Next I would refer to the case of holiday resorts like St. Andrews on the East Coast, or Dunoon on the West Coast, small burghs into which there come vast irruptions of holiday makers at certain times of the year. Though they are small burghs, they have in this respect a great responsibility, and they keep a large and expert staff to deal with the medical problems which may arise. In some cases it is a larger and more expert staff than the counties themselves maintain, and surely it is absurd that compulsion should be exercised upon them. If there is a necessity for them to appoint the county medical officer as their medical officer, surely the only sensible course to take would be to bring the parties round a table to discuss the subject and carry them with you in the course proposed. The hon. and gallant Member said there was only one point in the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. McLean Watson)—a very interesting speech, I thought it was—which was worth replying to, and even that point he said contemptuously, at the end of his speech, was hardly worth dwelling on. The reason he left it so hurriedly was that he found it more pointed than he realised when he started. He said that the people who would vote on the question of the appointment in the county council would be the same people as would have voted in the burgh. Yes, but if they vote in the burgh they have the deciding say, whereas if they vote on the county council they may be outvoted by all the other members of the council. That is the difference. I hope that as the hon. and gallant Member was obviously under some misapprehension when he last replied that he will reconsider the Amendment, and, if possible, accept it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

I must say that I wish the voluntary principle had been retained. I think it would have been sounder. The compulsory system may be all very well, but it does not suit all parties. In the county of Argyll we have Dunoon and also Oban and there is also Rothesay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rothesay in Argyllshire?"] It is only just across the water. Those places have big health services, and very efficient ones too. Oban has so efficient a health service that it takes all the infectious disease cases from the whole county of Argyll. As I said in connection with the question of sanitary inspectors it would be very awkward if a large number of cases of infectious disease came in from a ship, or occurred suddenly in other circumstances, and the medical officer of health were away in some remote part of the county. These places have an enormous population in the summer time. The figures for Dunoon are astonishing—it has 40,000 visitors per week, and 25,000 per week go to Oban. There is a summer population of about 500,000 in Dunoon during the season, and of 250,000 in Oban. The present health services are under the control of local medical officers of health, and I am not sure that it is not a full-time job for them. They might be in a difficult position if their energies were scattered all over the county.

On the other hand there is the point made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) that there is a tendency to spread medical services over a wider area, for the simple reason that infectious diseases do not respect municipal boundaries. That is, perhaps, a sounder view to take, but I would like to hear the hon. Member for East Edinburgh on that point again. He ought to give us his views. I think it would have been a better arrangement if we had retained the voluntary principle and allowed for an adjustment to be made between the two bodies. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) talked about the Lord Advocate being suspicious of town councils. He himself seemed to have a suspicion of county councils. I have only a modest amount of enthusiasm for either town councillors or county councillors or, for that matter, for Members of Parliament, but I do not think it is quite right that we should set one body of councillors against another body of councillors, because I think they are all bound up together in the spirit of doing their best for the country.

Sir A. SINCLAIR

The hon. and learned Member is misrepresenting me. I never mentioned county councillors. I entirely deny that I was trying to set town councillors against county councillors. All I was urging was what the hon. and learned Member himself is urging that the appointment of the county medical officer of health to be medical officer of health also for these burghs should be left to be a matter of agreement.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

The impression left upon my mind, which is still one of normal intelligence, was the attack the hon. and gallant Member made on the Lord Advocate for being down on the town councils, for having a deep suspicion of them. The only inference was that if we are going to take things away from the town council he had an equal objection to them being given to the county council. If the county of Argyll had been divided into departments, Dunoon and Corval, Oban and Lorne, Campbeltown and Kintyre, it would have been a much more rational division than massing such scattered places together under one system.

Dr. SHIELS

I regret that I cannot support this Amendment, as I sympathise a good deal with the enthusiasm and the spirit which were expressed by those who spoke in support of it. In view, however, of what we have already agreed to do, I think the Amendment is not practicable It would not work. If a medical officer is appointed for a county, and individual burghs are to have a right to refuse his services and to make another appointment, the very greatest difficulties would arise. The burghs which objected might not be the most suitable ones to have a medical officer of their own. One sees with regret the passing of the medical officer of health of the smaller burghs, because he has been a local figure of great importance and interest. In many cases he has been a man who has done magnificent work, but we must face the fact that, with the advance of medical science, in order to deal properly with public health matters we must have such laboratory and scientific equipment as the small unit is really unable to furnish. In the interests of the people themselves in the smaller burghs it is important that they should have available the very latest resources of science in medicine and the full equipment associated with these. At the same time, I agree with the arguments brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) in reference to places like Rothesay, Oban, St. Andrews and Dunoon which, especially in the summer time, have a large population, are well equipped, and ought to have their own medical officers of health. I think it will be found that the department of the Board of Health in Scotland has always in medical matters, been up-to-date and progressive. They will not, I am sure, be averse to taking advantage of the reservation in the Clause allowing for a burgh medical officer of health in the case of a burgh where it is appropriate that it should have a medical officer of its own. I therefore cannot support the Amendment.

Mr. E. BROWN

Surely the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) is wrong when he talks about the higher range of services which seem to be concentrated in the great cities. This is not a matter of the large burghs as against the counties and the small burghs. There can be no comparison between the efficiency of the one as compared with the other. I think this is a wise Amendment, and I hope it will be pressed to a Division.

Major ELLIOT

The Department will take advantage of the reservation put in

to safeguard positions such as those which have been brought to our notice from time to time. We have done our best in other portions of the Bill to safeguard those cases by Amendments which provide for delegating the control of medical services to the smaller local authorities. We shall take advantage of the provision which has been inserted in the Bill to deal with exceptional cases like those which occur in seaside resorts. We have been asked to leave the whole matter for negotiation. The Government have been challenged to produce a single example of obstruction or reaction in the case of a small authority appointing un unsuitable man. I will give one case of this kind. A certain local authority in 1919 appointed a medical officer of health who did not possess the necessary statutory qualifications. The local authority were reminded of the requirements. The Board pointed out that the statutory requirements were imperative, and the process of negotiation began. For how long did those negotiations go on? They went on till 1922; they went on further till 1028. The Government do not desire that the time of public departments should be taken up discussing negotiations of this kind. If this Amendment is pressed to a Division, I hope the Mover of it will not find that many hon. Members will follow him into the Lobby.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'Board,' in line 34, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 43.

Division No. 207.] AYES. [6.20 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Briggs, J. Harold Connolly, M.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman Briscoe, Richard George Cooper, A. Duff
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Brocklebank, C. E. R. Cope, Major Sir William
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Couper, J. B.
Apsley, Lord Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Courtauld, Major J. S.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Atholl, Duchess of Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Atkinson, C. Buckingham, Sir H. Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Butt, Sir Alfred Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Campbell, E. T. Daikeith, Earl of
Balniel, Lord Cautley, Sir Henry S. Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon Cayzer,Maj.SIr Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Davies, Dr. Vernon
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Berry, Sir George Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Day, Harry
Bethel, A. Charieton, H. C Dunnico, H.
Betterton, Henry B. Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Eden, Captain Anthony
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Christie, J. A. Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Blundell, F. N. Clayton, G. C. Elliot, Major Walter E.
Boothby, R. J. G. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Ellis, R. G.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Salmon, Major I.
Everard, W. Lindsay Locker-Lampson, Com.O. (Handsw'th) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Loder, J. de V. Sandemen, N. Stewart
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Looker, Herbert William Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Lougher, Lewis Sanderson, Sir Frank
Ford, Sir P. J. Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Sandon, Lord
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Savery, S. S.
Foster, Sir Harry S. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew,W)
Fraser, Captain Ian McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. MacIntyre, Ian Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony McLean, Major A. Skelton, A. N.
Galbraith, J. F. W. Macmillan, Captain H. Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Ganzoni, Sir John MacNeill-Weir, L. Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Gates, Percy Macquisten, F. A. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Mac Robert, Alexander M. Smithers, Waldron
Gower, Sir Robert Maitand, Sir Arthur D. Steel Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Grant, Sir J. A. Margesson, Captain D. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Hall, F, (York, W.R., Normanton) Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hamilton, Sir George Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Harland, A. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Tasker, R. Inigo.
Hartington, Marquess of Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Templeton, W. P.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley) Murchison, Sir Kenneth Waddington, R.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Nelson, Sir Frank Wallace, Captain D. E.
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by) Nuttall, Ellis Warrender, Sir Victor
Hills, Major John Waller O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Hilton, Cecil O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Watts, Sir Thomas
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G. Penny, Frederick George Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wayland, Sir William A.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Perring, Sir William George Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Hopkins, J. W. W. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Wells, S. R.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Preston, William White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.) Price, Major C. W. M. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Radford, E. A. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Raine, Sir Walter Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Rawson, Sir Cooper Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)
Hurd, Percy A. Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hurst, Gerald B. Reid, D. D. (County Down) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Rentoul, G. S. Womersley, W. J.
Iveagh, Countess of Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston). Ropner, Major L. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas Ross, R. D.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Lamb, J. Q. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain
Lee, F. Rye, F. G. Bowyer.
NOES.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hirst, G. H. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hollins, A. Snell, Harry
Buchanan, G. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Sullivan, Joseph
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Sutton, J. E.
Compton, Joseph Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen) Thurtie, Ernest
Cove, W. G. Lindley, F. W. Tomlinson, R. P.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Livingstone, A. M. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Lowth, T. Welsh, J. C.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Lunn, William Whiteley, W.
Gillett, George M. Maxton, James Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Griffith, F. Kingsley Potts, John S. Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Purcell, A. A. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Groves, T. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Scrymgeour, E. Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison
Harris, Percy A. Shinwell, E. and Major Owen.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Amendment made:

In page 29, line 34, leave out the word "Board," and insert instead thereof the words "Department of Health."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Mr. JOHNSTON

I beg to move, in page 29, line 35, to leave out the words: "or the sanitary inspector, as the case may be."

This is consequential upon the earlier Amendment, which was not opposed by the Government, and which was agreed to by the Committee.

Amendment agreed to. Further Amendments made:

In page 29, line 40, leave out the word "salaries," and insert instead thereof the word "salary."

In line 40, leave out the words "officers and the assistants of such officers," and insert instead thereof the word "officer."—[Mr. Johnston.]

In line 43, leave out the word "Board," and insert instead thereof the word "Department."—[The Lord Advocate.]