HL Deb 05 July 1921 vol 45 cc974-8

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, perhaps it would save time if I said one or two words in connection with a series of Amendments to Clause 7, which are on the Paper. I have been informed that this Bill, which, as I stated on the Second Reading, has the simple object of allowing certain officers to do their duty without fear or favour, in the interest of public health, has passed through all its stages in another House, and if it went back to that House with material alterations it would have very little chance of passing into law. I therefore want to make an appeal to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, who has several Amendments on the Paper, not to press them at the present time, for that reason.

I would also like to say, in regard to his proposals, that they practically amount to a deletion of the clause and would create exceptions in, favour of one or two authorities in London. I might add that the London County Council are satisfied with the alteration that I have proposed, and which can be effected by a more simple method even than my Amendment—by inserting the word "senior," so that the operation of this Bill would be restricted to the senior sanitary inspector.

The London County Council have written to me to say:— I am very much obliged to your Lordship for kindly putting down, for the Committee stage. an Amendment, confining the operation of Clause 7 so far as it concerns the Metropolitan borough councils, to the chief sanitary inspector of each council.… The omission of the clause the Council does not now wish to press. One other ground upon which I might urge the noble Lord not to press his Amendment to-day is that an Order in Council is already in force, whereby any newly-appointed officer cannot be dismissed with- out the sanction of the Minister of Health. All that this Bill does is to allow those who already exercise powers in the same position to have the same security of tenure as the Order in Council will give to newly-appointed officers. In the circumstances I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press his Amendment.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gainford.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Provisions as to London.

7.—(1) The provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2) of section one hundred and eight of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (which relate to the removal and appointment, of medical officers of health of metropolitan borough councils), shall apply to the sanitary inspectors of metropolitan borough councils and to the medical officers of health and the sanitary inspectors of the port sanitary authority of the Port of London as they apply to the medical officers of health of metropolitan borough councils, and those provisions shall have effect accordingly.

(2) Save as provided by this section this Act shall not apply to the administrative county of London.

LORD PHILLIMORE, who had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out subsection (1), said: As this clause originally stood it put the Metropolitan borough councils in a worse position than the county boroughs and district councils. It put them in the position that they could not remove a single sanitary inspector without getting the previous leave of the Minister of Health. It may be quite right that the medical officer of health, a very important man with a great position, should have the right (as I think practically, without this Bill, he had) of not being removed without the sanction of the Ministry of Health; and no objection is raised to that. But the sanitary inspector stands in a very different position. Sanitary inspectors are inferior officers, who may be disciplined by the medical officer of health himself, and it is a monstrous idea to say that because possibly in some small country districts some owner of slum property might have so much weight that the sanitary inspector's life would be a burden to him, if he had not the power of going to the Ministry of Health, therefore, the great metropolitan boroughs (as in the case of the borough for which I speak, Kensington, which has eleven sanitary inspectors) should be in the position of having to go to the Ministry of Health because some undisciplined sanitary inspector refused to do what the medical officer of health told him, or to do his duty. Discipline, after all, must be observed, and my borough made a special request to me—I have been the mayor of that borough and am now an alderman—that I should bring this matter before your Lordships' House.

I am not sure, but I think that this clause was not in the original Bill. It was inserted in Committee in another place, and passed so rapidly that many of the Metropolitan boroughs had not time to see or consider it before it came to your Lordships' House. In the case of my own borough the committee were reporting against it, and the council were considering the committee's report on the very day when it was passing Second Reading in your Lordships' House. That being the case, I was prepared to submit, not that the medical officers of health of the sanitary authority of the Port of London, but all the sanitary inspectors of the borough councils and of the sanitary authority of the Port of London should be struck out of this clause.

The Amendment of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Gainford) would put the London boroughs in the same position as the county boroughs. It would be all to the good. There are ten inspectors in Kensington who would be subject to dismissal, and only one who would not. But it is not logical. The minor inspectors are not under the chief inspector; he is only a sort of primus inter pares. I confess I should very much prefer not to carry the whole of my Amendment. On consideration, I do not want to omit the whole of this subsection, but I should desire to strike out the words "to the sanitary inspectors of metropolitan borough councils and," and to snake a similar alteration when we come to the next line of the clause about the sanitary inspectors of the Port of London. The noble Lord says that Amendments imperil this Bill, but he is going to make an Amendment. The Bill must go back to another place to have the Amendment considered, and, if they are both agreed Amendments, the Bill will not be inure imperilled by having two Amendments in it than by having one. And unless I feel that there is strong opposition from the master of the legions I shall ask your Lordships not to take the first of my Amendments, leaving out subsection (1) (which I will ask leave to withdraw), but to take the second Amendment, and leave out "the sanitary inspectors of metropolitan borough councils and." If that was done, I should then ask to make a similar suggestion with regard to the sanitary inspectors of the port sanitary authority.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 17 and 18, leave out (" to the sanitary inspectors of metropolitan borough councils and ") —.(Lord Phillimore.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I do not think that the Government can accept this Amendment, and they would be prepared to support the noble Lord opposite (Lord Gainford) if he went to a Division. We think it would be unfair to place the sanitary inspectors of the metropolitan borough councils in an unfavourable position in this respect.

LORD PHILLIMORE

May I suggest to the noble Lord opposite, who seems to have the master of the legions at his back, that he will want the word "chief" or "senior" twice. He will want it on line 17— shall apply to the sanitary inspectors of metropolitan borough councils. and on line 19— and the sanitary inspectors of the port sanitary authority. I would suggest for his consideration that it would be much better to say the "chief or senior," because if he will turn to Clause 2, he will see that the local authority is to determine who is the senior. That, of course, gets rid of all difficulty. I quite see that, for the sake of getting an easier passage for the Bill, the noble Lord would wish to make the very short Amendment which he proposes in Clause 7, but if there has been no determining authority I think it would be better to say "chief or senior," and I will tell the noble Lord why. In Kensington (and, I imagine, in all the great London boroughs) there is a chief inspector, so-called, who is better paid than the others. The others are not his subordinates, he is merely primus inter pares, but he has a different title. I think it would be better if the noble Lord were to say "chief or senior" in both cases.

LORD GAINFORD

I should be very glad to accept. the words suggested by the noble Lord. I am told that if such words are inserted they would be regarded as purely drafting Amendments, and as merely harmonising the clause with Clause 2, and they would probably not imperil the Bill.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand that the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment.

LORD PHILLIMORE

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (1), after "the" ["shall apply to the sanitary inspectors of metropolitan borough councils "] to insert, "chief or senior."

Amendment moved— Clause 7, page 3, line 17, after (" the'') insert (" chief or senior ").—(Lord Gainford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (1) after "the" ["the sanitary inspectors of the port sanitary authority"] to insert "chief or senior."

Amendment moved— Clause 7, page 3, line 19, after (" the ") insert (" chief or senior.")—(Lord Gainford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does that cover the other Amendment?

LORD PHILLIMORE

The other Amendment is withdrawn.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.