HC Deb 28 February 1949 vol 462 cc128-35

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 25th January, 1949, entitled the Local Authorities (Charges for Dustbins) Order, 1949 (S.I. 1949, No. 120), a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th January, be annulled.

8.13 p.m.

Captain Crowder

We now return to a consideration of the order, and I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for keeping him here for an hour. I could not help the discussion being interrupted.

As I was saying, there may be a case for local authorities being empowered to provide what the order calls: a movable receptacle for the deposit of ashes or refuse in certain cases, but until we have had a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary I cannot see the reason why power is taken to double the charge from half a crown to 5s. per annum. Under the Public Health Act, 1936, local authorities may make an annual charge not exceeding 2s. 6d. for each dustbin provided and maintained by them. I do not quite know what "maintained by them" means, but I assume that it would cover superficial repair. That does not seem to be a very heavy item.

By this order the authorities are empowered to increase the charge by 100 per cent., to 5s. Without some explanation we cannot see why this 100 per cent. increase is necessary, unless the real idea behind the scheme is to enable local authorities to charge for the whole service of removal of refuse and the disposal of the same, in addition to providing the actual dustbins. One can buy a dustbin nowadays, I am told, quite well and easily at 25s., and that the life of such a dustbin is about 10 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Therefore, half a crown a year is adequate for the upkeep of such a dustbin.

I now revert to the Memorandum by the Ministry of Health which will be found in the third report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The solicitor and legal adviser to the Ministry of Health states in paragraph 2 that the object of the order is: to enable local authorities to continue the service of the provision and maintenance of the dustbins … without financial loss. In paragraph 3 he states that owing to the increased cost of dustbins and to their reduced durability, the permitted charge of half a crown is no longer adequate. I have explained that I do not agree and that I think the present charge is adequate.

I submit that the Ministry of Health in the appendix to the report of the Committee are giving away the whole reason for the proposed increased charge in paragraph 6, when they referred to the collection and disposal of refuse. That is a very different proposition from the actual maintaining of those receptacles. I submit that a proper consideration may not have been given to the order before it was issued and that the House should not without adequate explanation give power to local authorities to increase the charge of half a crown to 5s. So far as any ordinary person is concerned, it seems that most of this extra money which can now be demanded under the order will go towards the actual removing and disposal of the refuse and not only tho maintenance of the dustbin: Therefore, we desire to get a full explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Challen (Hampstead)

It may seem very small to be standing here in a comparatively empty House of Commons talking about dustbins and difference between half a crown and 5s. chargeable by local authorities in respect of dustbins, but there is a very important constitutional point involved. We are being asked to enable the Minister, by order, to alter an Act of Parliament, instead of introducing an amending Bill himself on the subject. We have a committee which deals with statutory instruments. It was set up as the result of a long agitation by the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Captain Crowder) and myself, when we were sitting on the other side some years ago. We persuaded the Government to set up this Select Committee, which reports on statutory instruments.

It is very seldom that the Select Committee report adversely upon a particular order, although something like 2,000 or 3,000 orders come before it every year. When this committee does raise a question on a particular order, it is incumbent on the House to consider seriously what constitutional issue is involved. In this case, the committee had before it the memorandum which has been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend and which was signed by a gentleman calling himself—perhaps I know Mr. Harrison—the solicitor and legal adviser to the Ministry of Health. This House cannot be regulated and advised by anybody calling himself "solicitor and legal adviser to the Ministry of Health." This House has to be advised by the order in question and the principles in question. In his memorandum Mr. Harrison says: It is the view of the Department that the purpose of the Order … He goes on: As to the provision of dustbins generally, Section 75 (1) of the Public Health Act He goes on to say: From the general tenor of the above provisions there is a clear intention that dustbins shall be provided at the expense.… In paragraph (4) he says: It may be urged that the service could be maintained despite financial loss. I should have thought that it could have been. Paragraph (5) says: It may further be urged that the maintenance of the service under Section 75 (3) is not obligatory upon local authorities. Paragraph (6) says: It may finally be observed that Defence Regulation 56 (1, B), coupled with the definition of public utility undertaking' in Defence Regulation 100, applies in particular to the authorisation of local authorities who carry on an undertaking for the collection … I cannot go on quoting the rigmarole. Although he has already said, "It may finally be observed," in paragraph (7) he says: A further point on which the Select Committee have requested an explanation is the question why the object in view was not attained by an amendment by Act of Section 75 of the Public Health Act, 1936. He then says: As to this, the course suggested would have been taken by the Department had there been any legislation in view in which the relevant amendment could be properly incorporated. No such opportunity presents itself at present. Why not? Why should we not introduce a small amending Bill to deal with the question of dustbins? We have Private Members' Bills every week and the Government have the rest of the time of the House to introduce a small amendment which would go through unopposed. The memorandum goes on: But it is intended that upon the first suitable occasion that course will be taken. I suggest that the Government take that occasion tomorrow and withdraw this order tonight.

8.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr, Blenkinsop)

I am very glad that this serious subject has been discussed in such a serious vein tonight because, whatever hon. Members on both sides may think, this is an important service provided by local authorities, and however amusing some hon. Members opposite may think this subject, it is a matter of some concern to very many local authorities. We are therefore glad that the matter has been raised tonight. I think the explanation we can give will satisfy the hon. Members who have raised it.

I want first to make it clear that the proposal to introduce this order was at the request of several local authorities, and, indeed, of local authority associations. In spite of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Captain Crowder), they are faced with an increasing charge, and in many cases they find that they cannot carry out the service purely of providing the dustbins and maintaining them in good repair on the charge which is permitted under the Public Health Act. They therefore asked my right hon. Friend for power to increase the charges to enable them to cover their costs, a perfectly reasonable and proper thing for them to do, and after some investigation of the practice of various local authorities my right hon. Friend agreed to this procedure.

Hon. Members opposite, and in particular the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), raised the matter largely on the basis of the actual legal rectitude of this procedure rather than the actual procedure of the service. I assure the hon. Member that its provision is clearly covered by the quotation which he read out: That the purpose should fall within that expressed in Section 1 (1, a) of the Act of 1945 for the purpose of so maintaining, controlling and regulating services essential to the wellbeing of the community as to secure their availability at fair prices. That was the quotation from the explanatory memorandum which the Ministry submitted to the Select Committee.

Sir J. Mellor

The hon. Gentleman gives me that assurance, but the fact remains that the Select Committee reported that this order: Appears to make an unusual and unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statutes under which it is made. He has that to get over.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Certainly it is unusual because it has not been used in this form before, but that is not to say that something which is unusual is necessarily wrong. Very far from it.

Sir J. Mellor

But "unexpected"?

Mr. Blenkinsop

Yes, it may be unexpected to hon. Members opposite, and no doubt to some extent unexpected to hon. Members in all parts of the House, but, again, that in no way means that it is a wrong provision. It is clearly covered by those words because it is quite clear that the provision by which local authorities can provide a dubtbin service is quite essential in the view of the local authorities to the welfare of their community. They feel that to allow this provision to be made by the individual householder, as in many cases they are makes for very real difficulty. It means that we get all sorts of sizes, sh•apes and qualities of dustbins.

I do not want to go into great detail on this matter. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has not investigated this matter quite as thoroughly as he might, because it matters a great deal to the efficiency of the service that we should have a fairly standard type of dustbin to collect and that we should maintain it in proper condition. If these dustbins are not maintained in proper condition, then very serious results may ensue. Open dustbins might mean a vast onslaught of flies, a very serious matter. I thought at one moment that the Prayer was being put down as the first blow of our opponents' campaign for open enterprise by means of open dustbins.

Sir J. Mellor

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the suitability of dustbins. If he will look at Section 1 (1) of the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, he will find that that only refers to availability at fair prices. We are not concerned at all with what is appropriate or suitable; the question is availability.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is also concerned with the success and improvement of this service, but so far as availability is concerned, where local authorities leave this matter entirely to the individual householder, although it is true that they have powers of compulsion on householders in certain districts, these powers are very lengthy and in the meantime the flies may be getting out of the dustbins. I should have thought that hon. Members on all sides of the House would have supported my right hon. Friend in taking any necessary precautions to prevent this sad and dangerous happening.

So far as landlords are concerned, they are able to charge what they wish for dustbins in their original agreements, and surely that is a totally different position? We believe that this small Order provides for an essential service needed by many local authorities, and we feel that hon. Members on all sides of the House would not wish to take any action which would cause difficulty to local authorities in the proper carrying out of their work.

It might be right to mention that we have explained in the memorandum put forward by the Ministry of Health that we would ourselves have desired, had there been the opportunity, to make the necessary amendment by form of a Bill to the House but, as there was no immediate prospect of a Bill coming forward, it was obviously foolish to let this state of affairs continue without taking action as immediate as possible. I hope this explanation will be satisfactory to the hon. Member who raised the matter, and I hope the local authorities will be able to carry forward this vital and necessary service.

Captain Crowder

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, could he say what he considers is the cost of these dustbins, and how long he thinks they should last before they want repairing?

Mr. Blenkinsop

With pleasure. They run at varying prices. Some local authorities can purchase them for around 20s., and some local authorities pay more. With regard to the life of the dustbin, the hon. Member is extremely lucky if he gets a dustbin to last 10 years. I would have thought it was a much shorter life than that, but he will contribute towards a longer life by effective servicing.

Sir J. Mellor

On the question of the life of the dustbin, I notice that in paragraph 3 of the memorandum of the Ministry of Health submitted to the Select Committee, they said: Owing, however, to the increased cost of dustbins and to their reduced durability the permitted charge is no longer adequate. … I would like to know whether their reduced durability is due to inferior quality or to the fact that the corporation workmen throw them around with a great deal more vigour than they used to do. However, that is really beside my main point. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the local authorities wanted this order. I can well understand that. They always want more power, more scope, more latitude, but our contention—which followed the view of the Select Committee—was that this order was not really within the powers contemplated by the Supplies and Services Act, 1945.

In dismissing my point about the parallel case of the landlords of rent-controlled premises, I think the Parliamentary Secretary was quite wrong. He said that landlords can charge for dustbins what they wish in their original agreements. Of course they can, if they are making agreements now, but I referred specifically to landlords of existing rent-controlled premises, and their tenants have become in most cases statutory tenants who have the benefit of the services which the landlords agreed to provide in their original agreements—I hope I may have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Tolley (Kidderminster)

Get on with it.

Sir J. Mellor

Whatever the hon. Member may say, he has not, I am quite certain, even looked at the order. This is a matter of some importance. At any rate the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments thought so. I invite the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the point that the landlords of rent controlled premises, by their original agreements, are in many cases bound to provide certain services, including the supply of dustbins. By this order he has provided that local authorities who are not liable to supply them but may supply them, shall be entitled to double the charge. If that is right, what conceivable ground has he for not including in the order a provision that landlords may also double the charge in respect of the dustbins?

Mr. Blenkinsop

If the hon. Baronet really wants an answer to that point, it should be pointed out that a landlord is not a public utility, and we are dealing here with public utilities.

Sir J. Mellor

No, but if it is competent by virtue of the provisions of the Transitional Powers Act, 1945, for the Minister to make an order which in effect amends the Public Health Act of 1936, it would equally be within his power for a similar purpose to make an order amending the Rent Acts. That I maintain. I do not suggest that it would be any more appropriate, or that in law it would be any more valid, for him to do so, but it would be no less valid, and certainly equally fair. Indeed, there is a far stronger case in equity for providing such assistance to landlords than there is in the case of local authorities, for the simple reason that in the case of local authorities this service is permissive, and in the case of a large number of landlords, who provide services in rent-controlled premises, it is obligatory.

I say that the Parliamentary Secretary has dismissed the point without serious consideration, which I much regret. This order is not within the powers provided by the Statute, and I further regret that the Ministry of Health have not taken the Debate more seriously. I hope they will on reflexion think better of it and will introduce a Bill and so, by Statute, cure the evil they are doing by this order.

Question put, and negatived.