HL Deb 23 July 1891 vol 356 cc62-5

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Further verbal Amendments made.

LORD MONKSWELL

I want to ask the noble Viscount (Viscount Cross) if he is in a position to state the attitude which he proposes to take up with regard to the Amendment upon Clause 7 which was moved in Standing Committe by Lord Clifford.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)

I shall be able to give a better answer if the noble Lord would move it on the Third Reading. My Lords, the next Amendment I have is in Clause 47, page 27, lines 41 to 43, to leave out Sub-section 7. That is in order to meet the objection raised by the noble and learned Lord opposite in the same Committee. Then on page 28, line 3, at the end of the clause, I move to insert a separate sub section. I understand that a grievance has been raised by the shopkeepers who wish to be placed on the same footing as those who sell meat in the open market. If meat is sold in the open market and it goes bad in the course of the day they simply give notice to the inspector and he orders it to be taken away. They simply ask that they should not be liable to be fined because they have it in their possession, and that they may be enabled to give notice to the inspector to have it taken away at an early opportunity at their expense.

Amendment moved, in Clause 47, page 27, lines 41 to 43, to leave out Subsection 7, and in page 28, line 3 to insert at end of Clause as a separate sub-section— Where a person has in his possession any article which is unsound or unwholesome, or unfit for the food of man, he may, by written notice to the Sanitary Authority, specifying such article, and containing a sufficient identification of it, request its removal, and the Sanitary Authority shall cause it to be removed as if it were trade refuse."—(The Viscount Cross.)

Amendment agreed to.

*VISCOUNT CROSS

The next Amendment I have to move is on page 30 to leave out Clause 55. The noble Earl opposite will remember that he raised a question as to the definition of dangerous and infectious diseases. The Department are perfectly willing to meet the objection of the noble Earl, and the way they propose to do it is this: To strike out Clause 55 and transpose the other clauses so as to come under the head of other infectious diseases.

Amendments agreed to, on page 30 to leave out Clause 55; on same page to transpose Clause 56 after Clause 80; on same page to transpose Clause 57 after Clause 71.—(The Viscount Cross.)

Clause 58.

Verbal Amendment made.

*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

With regard to the next Amendment in this Clause, to leave out from beginning of line 19 to "or" in line 21, I wish to say it appears to me—I may be wrong—that the effect of it is that a person who wilfully exposes himself in a public conveyance or enters a public conveyance without previous notice to the owner, will not be subject to a penalty. It certainly ought to be explained that if a man does it knowingly he will be subject to a penalty. It does not seem to me to be included in the re-enactment in the later clause.

VISCOUNT CROSS

I think the noble Lord will find it in Clause 73 in the re-enactment.

*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

It is provided in Clause 73 that the owner or driver of a public conveyance should not knowingly convey a person suffering from an infectious disease, and so forth. The conveyance has to be disinfected, and he has to bear all the expenses of that disinfection; but that does not revive the penalty for entering the public conveyance.

*VISCOUNT CROSS

I would point out to the noble Earl the Amendment upon Clause 73, that if a person so suffering is conveyed in a public conveyance the owner and driver of the conveyance should cause it to be disinfected, or, failing to do so, shall be liable to a fine— And the owner or driver of such conveyance should be entitled to recover in a summary manner from the person so conveyed by him, or by the person causing the person to be so conveyed.

LORD HERSCHELL

As the Bill at present stands there is a penalty on a person who wilfully and knowingly enters a public conveyance. This Amendment deals with a fine upon the owner and driver who convoys the person who wilfully and knowingly does it. For that he incurs a fine which, for some reason or other, it is now proposed to take out.

*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

Really the Amendment ought to commence at "and" in line 27. Perhaps the noble Viscount will consider it, and, if it is wrong, put it straight.

*VISCOUNT CROSS

Certainly.

Verbal Amendments made.

*VISCOUNT CROSS

There is an Amendment in page 39, line 16, to make the addition to the clause which I have mentioned.

Amendment moved, in Clause 73 page 39, line 16, at end of clause add— ("And if any person so suffering is conveyed in any public conveyance, the owner and driver thereof, as soon as it comes to his knowledge, shall cause such conveyance to be disinfected, and if he fails so to do, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and the owner or driver of such conveyance shall be entitled to recover in a summary manner from the person so conveyed by him, or from the person causing that person to be so conveyed, a sum sufficient to cover any loss and expense incurred by him in connection with such disinfection.")—(The Viscount Cross.)

Amendment agreed to.

*VISCOUNT CROSS

On Clause 110 I wish to point out that my right hon. Friend, the President of the Local Government Board has, since these Amendments have been placed on the paper, received communications in regard to placing the Sanitary Inspector on the same level as the Medical Officers of Health. So far as that matter is concerned, it was determined that we should lake the opinion of your Lordships with regard to striking out those words, which were introduced by Lord Fortescue in Standing Committee, as to placing the Sanitary Inspector on the same level as the Medical Officer.

Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 255.)