PUBLIC HEALTH ACT 1961 (AMENDMENT) (Hansard, 28 May 1963)

§ Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 41 of the Public Health Act 1961. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will accept that I have been listening to this debate with some fascination because I now wish to ask the House to give me leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the Amendment of Section 41 of the Public Health Act, 1961, to make compensation, now payable by local authorities to persons ordered to stay away from work because they are suspected of being carriers of disease, chargeable to the National Insurance Fund.

If the charging to that fund does not commend itself to the Government, I should be very happy to listen to suggestions if the Government would provide, in due course, the necessary Money Resolution, because, on advice that I have received from the Public Bill Office, I understand that a private Member cannot suggest a charge on central funds. The existing liability on local authorities under this Section was not discussed really at all at any stage in either House during the course of the Bill through Parliament. I suggest that to localise the liability in this way, in other words, to make local authorities chargeable for the compensation payable to people, is not logical for two reasons.

First, the man's place of residence may be, and usually is, very far from his place of work, yet it may be at the place of work that the damage may be done if he is a carrier of disease. This may apply when the person concerned lives in one local authority area and works in another. Yet under the existing provisions of the Act the charge is payable by the local authority where the man resides.

Secondly, supposing a man works in a food factory—this is the danger of the position—the product of that factory may have been contaminated and disseminated and marketed all over the nation. But the official exclusion from work is authorised either by the Section 1141 I have referred to, Section 41 of the Public Health Act, 1961, or the Public Health Infectious Diseases Regulations of 1953. Indeed, such may be the reluctance of local authorities to attract the financial liability of having to pay compensation that ingenious advisers of local authorities can draw on certain alternative measures, such as encouraging the person that is suspected, to "go sick," thereby attracting sickness benefit, although, of course, after a time general practitioners object to that. Also, they may have to seek other employment.

Thirdly, pressure can be brought on an employer either to dismiss or to suspend such suspected persons. Fourthly, that by dismissing a person from his employment this provides justification for the payment of unemployment benefit.

If poisoning can be traceable to a factory, it will be appreciated that a substantial number of people may be involved, and if people have to be laid off for this reason it may take time for them to receive the necessary clearance test. The Ministry of Health has accepted that this is possible, namely, that small local authorities may have to meet substantial compensation bills, because it is not just a question of unemployment benefit, or sickness benefit, but of compensation for the man's earnings, and, while not in any way attributing a wrong attitude on the part of local authorities, I suggest that there is a risk of a lack of energy by local authorities in using these powers if they feel that they will attract a substantial bill.

I have knowledge of a case in Staffordshire where action was delayed for some time when other means were sought to deal with the trouble and thus not attract this sort of charge. This case related to a big bakery; I think that I am also justified in reminding the House, although this is in respect of another country, of the Zermatt case. In this case, there was just a suspicion that there was a reluctance on the part of the health authorities to bring this matter into the open because of the effect on the tourist trade. It was tourism in Zermatt, but 1142 there may be an equivalent consideration in England, and the lesson to be learned is that everything should be done to encourage local authorities to use Section 41, but to make the charge a charge eventually payable from some sort of central fund.

I am advised that the Ministry of Health has suggested to local authorities that they should use their powers under Section 41 in a circumspect way. In other words, it is rather as though the Ministry is conniving with local authorities to use these other persuasion methods to which I have referred, and, incidentally, in the end, they can conceivably use Section 149 of the Public Health Act, 1936, which can result in a fine being imposed on somebody who stays at work if known to be a carrier of disease.

If hon. Members will read the section on notifiable diseases in the 1961 Report of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, they will realise the importance of encouraging in every possible way suspected carriers to stay away from work and the need to encourage local authorities to use the powers of Section 41. If one considers enteric fevers including typhoid, there were 97 cases in 1961. With regard to food poisoning, there were 22 fatal cases in which the human factor was one of the major considerations. The Report also contains details about a butcher who was found to be an excreter of paratyphoid; a man who was potentially capable of contaminating a lot of food.

In all these circumstances, I suggest that this is a justifiable charge on central funds.