HL Deb 27 July 1891 vol 356 cc376-83

Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments.

*LORD THRING

My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount opposite will regard with favour a clause which I move on behalf of my noble Friend Lord Clifford, which is to come in after Clause 7—that is the clause which provides that after two convictions for overcrowding, a house shall be shut up. This clause provides that when the house is shut up the owner may go to the Court and ask the Court to adjust the rights between the occupier and himself; in other words, the Court may on such conditions as it thinks right and proper turn out the occupier in order that the owner may do his duty. I do not see, myself, why the owner should be driven to proceedings in ejectment when the Court which has cognisance of the case and knows all about it, can deal with it. I confess I think that the Court may very properly be called upon to determine the rights as between the owner and occupier. I was told that the noble Viscount intended to bring in a clause in some other Bill. I quite admit that no one is better acquainted with the details of such legislation than the noble Viscount, but even if he did intend to introduce it into another Bill I trust your Lordships will think this Amendment is necessary.

Moved to insert the following new clause to follow Clause 7, page 6, line 3:— When a closing order has been made as to any premises, the owner of such premises may apply to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and the Court shall thereupon summon the occupier or occupiers of such premises to show cause why he or they should not forthwith give up possession to the owner, and upon the hearing of such summons, the Court, if it thinks fit, shall by warrant cause possession of the premises to be given to the owner within a reasonable time, to be stated in such warrant, and shall make such order as to the cost of the proceedings as to the Court shall seem meet."—(The Lord Thring.)

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)

My Lords, my right hon. Friend, the President of the Local Government Board, objects strongly to putting that clause here. If anything of the kind was wanted, it should have been put in in the Bill which was passed last year with regard to the Housing of the Working. Classes. Your Lordships will think, I consider, that it would be very inconvenient to put in this clause, because you will find there is provision that when a nuisance arises notice shall be served on the owner, or, if he cannot be found, on the occupier. Then, if any structural alteration is necessary, of course notice has to be given to the owner, and if he does not do his duty, he will be subject to the penalties provided under the 4th and 5th clauses of this Bill. If the occupier is to be passed over for the purpose of the owner getting the premises into his own hands, it would be rather a premium on his not performing his duty and doing what he ought to do. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept the proposed clause.

*LORD THRING

I shall not press the Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

Clause 41 and Clause 60.

Verbal Amendments made.

LORD HERSCHELL

In regard to the Amendment in Clause 60, page 35, line 40, for compensating the owners of houses or articles for damage caused thereto, or upon the destruction of any article, by the authorities, I would suggest to the noble Viscount that he should move the Amendment, omitting the words "and in case of dispute shall be settled by"; and for this reason, that the words "shall be recoverable in a Petty Sessional Court," would, of course, give that Court jurisdiction to settle the dispute in cases involving any amount. You do not want those words "to settle" disputes, because you would have this inconvenience, that under the section in the other Act, with regard to proceedings for recovering penalties, if the matter be taken before the County Court it is to be treated as if such claim were a debt. If you leave those words in, it might be open to the construction that even if persons were desirous of going to the County Court their claims could not be settled there. That, of course, is not intended. It will do no harm to leave the words out.

*VISCOUNT CROSS

I will agree to that. Then the end of the clause will read, "shall be recoverable in a Petty Sessional Court."

Amendment moved, in Clause 60, page 35, line 40, to leave out from (" shall ") to the end of the clause and insert— Compensate the master or owner of such house or part of a house, or the owner of such article, for any unnecessary damage thereby caused to such house, part of a house, or article; and when the authority destroy any article under this section they shall compensate the owner thereof; and the amount of any such compensation shall be recoverable in a Petty Sessional Court."—(The Viscount Cross.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 108.

*VISCOUNT CROSS

In this clause I have to move to leave out the words "or Sanitary Inspector." This is a point which was raised in Standing Committee, and I object to the insertion of those words on behalf of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. The Standing Committee took a different view, and I have to ask your Lordships to reverse the opinion of the Standing Committee. The question is simply as to dismissal of the Sanitary Inspector, and it was sought by the insertion of these words to place him on the same footing as the Medical Officer. This is a question which has disturbed the Local Authorities very much. As originally drawn, the Bill had those words in; but very great objection was taken to them in the House of Commons; and an arrangement was come to by my right hon. Friend and all those who opposed the Bill, that the words should be omitted. In consequence of that agreement the opposition was withdrawn, and the Local Authorities were satisfied. As the Bill came up to your Lordships' House, therefore, those words were not in, but the Standing Committee inserted them, although I did all I could to prevent their doing so. I have now to ask your Lordships to strike out the words which the Standing Committee put in.

Moved in Clause 108, page 56, line 20, leave out ("or Sanitary Inspector"); lines 25 and 26, leave out ("or Sanitary Inspector"); line 28, leave out ("or Sanitary Inspector").—(The Viscount Cross.)

*EARL FORTESCUE

My Lords, I should not have attached so much importance to these words and have pressed their restoration rather than retention so much, if it had not happened that I have had almost a life-long experience of the great importance of enabling subordinate as well as more important officers in the work of Local Government to act fearlessly and independently. From the very first passing of what used to be called the New Poor Law, though it is now more than half a century old, a number of their officials, the Relieving Officers, the Medical Officers, and Masters of workhouses were rendered irremovable without the consent, in the first instance, of the Poor Law Commissioners, then of the Poor Law Board who replaced them, and now of the Local Government Board. Having served on a Board of Guardians, mostly as chairman and vice-chairman, for more than 40 years, and having during the greater part of the remainder of that time held the place of Secretary to the Poor Law Board, I can testify from experience, not only in a country Union, but from correspondence with Unions in all parts of the kingdom, as to the very great value and importance of enabling officers to discharge their duties fearlessly, without the dread of being dismissed at the instigation of some influential person in the body, whether a Sanitary Authority or Board of Guardians, or a London Vestry. The position of a Sanitary Inspector is still more invidious, still more open to misrepresentation, and still more likely to give offence than the position of a Relieving Officer. It is notorious—I speak from my experience now in another capacity, as having had a good deal to do for some years with the sanitary affairs of the Metropolis. I sat for years on more than one successive Metropolitan Commission of Sewers. I had the honour of being selected as chairman for all the latter portion of the time, and I know that sanitary improvement is in many instances just as unpopular with the tenants and lodgers, whose health is suffering from the unsanitary conditions in which they are, as it is with the owners of those unwholesome tenements. I am old enough to remember when one of the most powerful cries at an election was "The poor man's pig," and it is difficult to say who was the most indignant at the compulsory removal of the pigs from the immediate proximity to human habitation, the owner of the pig or his neighbour. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the popular feeling among those who are most subject to the evils resulting from unsanitary conditions is on the side of improvement; it very often is just the reverse. The position of the Sanitary Inspector, who may be considered, as it were, a private in the ranks of the sanitary army, whereas the medical officer of health, who is made irremovable by this Bill without the consent of the Local Government Board, may be considered as one of the officers, is without some such protection as this, a most invidious and hazardous one. Sanitary inspectors are liable to be either tempted to neglect their duty or to suffer a real martyrdom, and to be deprived of their livelihood by giving offence to some influential vestryman—and under this Act the Local Sanitary Authority is the vestry—a vestryman who perhaps has taken great pains to get himself elected in order to protect from needful, but perhaps rather costly, sanitary improvement, the unsanitary dwellings and lodgings for which he is receiving a high rent. More than half the Sanitary Inspectors have now, in London, got certificates of competent sanitary knowledge from the Sanitary Institute after a regular course of pretty stringent examination by men like Sir Douglas Galton, Professor Schofield, Professor Corfield, and others, who are themselves notoriously experts in sanitary matters. I think the practical value of this Bill will be very much impaired by the elimination of the words in question, and of the protection to the Sanitary Inspectors; and highly valuable as it is, for it is consolidation into an accessible and intelligible form of the multifarious sanitary statutes under which the inhabitants of the metropolis are living, its practical value will be very much diminished; if all those whose business it specially is to examine and inquire from house to house are to do so at the hazard of their situations, and danger of being deprived of their livelihood by interested parties, owners—one may use the word "owner" because that does not necessarily mean the ground landlord—who, as I have said, in many cases have taken pains to get elected in order to prevent the requisite sanitary improvements from being made at their expense. After, as I have said, a lifelong experience, almost, of the value of protection to officials who are engaged in useful, but unpopular duties, and as one who, for more than forty years, has devoted himself very much to the great sanitary cause, I most earnestly entreat the House not to accede to the elimination of these very important words.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

My noble Friend has stated at such great length the arguments in favour of the amendment which he moved in Standing Committee, and which it is now proposed to strike out, that I owe an apology to your Lordships for saying a word upon it; but I think the matter is one of some importance, and I must say I deeply regret to find that the noble Viscount intends to strike out these words. The matter lies in a very small compass indeed. The Sanitary Inspectors have extremely invidious duties to perform, and it seems to me more than any officer who is employed under the bodies controlled by the Local Government Board can be expected to do without protection. It is desirable, I think, that he should not be dismissed without the consent of the Local Government Board. This is not a new principle at all; it has always been applied as regards all the officers who serve under Boards of Guardians, and they certainly have duties less invidious to perform than those of the Sanitary Inspectors. Even a Medical Officer hardly has, I think, duties so difficult to perform with perfect honesty as a Sanitary Inspector. I do not wish to impute any particular laxity in the performance of their duties to the Sanitary Authorities; but it must be perfectly obvious that where there are men sitting on a Board, who are themselves, as is constantly the case, with others on the Board, interested in the nuisances which are to be suppressed, the Sanitary Officer will be tempted to exercise the duties of his office with an extreme lenity. It is notorious that this is the case, and especially is it so, I am told, in London, where Sanitary Officers have not always done their duty. I think it is very important indeed in passing an Act of this kind, the whole value of which consists not in the mere passing of the Act, but in the way in which it may be administered, that we should give this protection to the Sanitary Officers. It appears to me that was the intention of the Government originally, and although they have given way to pressure from the very bodies who are interested in the matter, and who ought not to have been listened to on the subject, I still hope the House will preserve the Amendment and keep the Bill as it left the Standing Committee.

LORD MONK BRETTON

My Lords, I should just like to say one word upon this matter. I have heard with great regret that the noble Viscount proposes to omit these words. He offered no argument upon the merits of this omission; he simply said he proposed their omission because there were a good many vestrymen who would not like them to be retained. That rather appears to me to be an argument for the retention of the words. Every argument that applies to giving the Medical Officer of Health the protection of the Local Government Board, applies with greater force to the case of the Sanitary Inspector, who is a man whose task is even more invidious than that of the Medical Officer, and he is a smaller man, so to speak, and therefore more liable to be under the influence of the vestrymen than the other officers. It is not proposed to make the Sanitary Inspector independent; I should be very sorry to think he should be placed in an independent position, because be might act unreasonably, or take an unreasonable view of the facts in certain cases; but it is necessary he should be protected, otherwise he cannot be expected to perform his very invidious task.

*VISCOUNT CROSS

I would ask your Lordships to allow me to say one word more. I think the noble Lord who has just sat down has rather misunderstood my argument. The argument which I presented to your Lordships was that the Government, having introduced the words originally, were compelled to give way in the other House, and that they pledged themselves, as far as they were concerned, that those words should not appear in the Bill. I am very much afraid that, if we insisted upon these words remaining in, we might very much imperil the passing of the Bill.

On question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents 12; Not-Contents 31.

Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.