PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.

HL Deb 23 July 1925 vol 62 cc309-93

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

Moved. That the House do now resolve itself into Committe.—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL of DONOUGIIMORE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Application of Parts II to V in rural districts.

4.—(1) A rural district council may adopt all or any of the provisions of Parts II. III. and IV of this Act, except the sections in Parts II and III of this Act which are met tinned in the Second Schedule to this Act.

(2) The Minister of Health may by order apply to any rural district, or contributory place therein, any provision in Parts Il to V of this Act, in the same manner as provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, which apply to urban districts, may be applied to rural districts, or contributory places therein, and Section two hundred and seventy-six of that Act shall be extended accordingly.

Provided that, before any application is made to the Minister of Health for an order under this section, notice of the intended application specifying the provisions of this Act in respect of which an order is desired shall be inserted by the applicants for the order once at least in one or more of the newspapers circulating within the area to which the application relates in each of two successive weeks.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (2), after "Parts II to V of this Act," to insert "except as otherwise provided in this Act." The noble Lord said: I aril moving this Amendment because when we come to Clause 53 I hope to move an Amendment to add a proviso that the clause "shall not be applied to any rural district or contributory place therein." I do not wish to discuss Clause 53 at the moment, but this Amendment is in a way consequential upon the Amendment to Clause 53 should your Lordships agree to that Amendment. I am entirely in your Lordships' hands as to what procedure you would like to follow, but I would suggest, if I may, that We insert this Amendment here, and if I fail to carry my Amendment to Clause 53 then the words can be taken out on Report.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 3, after ("Act.") insert ("except as otherwise provided in this Act")—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD EMMOTT

I think that we may just as well deal with this matter now, although it will be necessary in that case to discuss the noble Lord's real reason for moving this Amendment. His object, I think, is to create an exception to the clause enabling the Minister of Health to apply the urban provisions of the Bill to any rural district or contributory place therein in the manner in which the urban provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, may be applied to rural districts. The noble Lord has referred to Clause 53, to which he desires to move a consequential Amendment. If your Lordships will look at Clause 53 you will see that it relates only to existing culverts and requires the owner or occupier to "repair, maintain and cleanse the culvert."

The clause applies primarily only to culverts situated in urban districts, but if a rural district council should wish to exercise this power as regards an existing culvert situated within its district there seems to be no adequate reason for preventing the. Minister, if he is satisfied with the case made out by the rural district council, from proceeding to give an order giving the necessary powers. It is not as if the clause required the owner to culvert his watercourse. I do not know that there is any other case in which existing Public Health Acts prevent the Minister from applying to a rural district an enactment which is meant primarily for urban districts and, that being so, I see no reason why your Lordships should accept the Amendment of the noble Lord.

LORD DYNEVOR

I did not know that my noble friend Lord Emmott was going to discuss Clause 53 and therefore when I rose to move my Amendment I did not mention Clause 53 in detail. As my noble friend Lord Emmott has pointed out, the owner or occupier of any culvert can be ordered to clean it out in an urban district and this may be extended to any rural area. There are many culverts in rural areas. They may just be between fields in farms or leading from a farmhouse or even in front of any of your Lordships' houses. I do not know why that power should be extended to rural areas, though it is quite right, I think, that it should be allowed in urban areas.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I almost hope that my noble friend will reconsider his wish to press this Amendment. I do so because the object of Clause 53 is to prevent serious damage being done to land owing to the blocking of a culvert. My noble friend, who is a much greater authority on land questions than I am, knows that it is a great evil when water cannot get away and the land becomes flooded, and that may apply not merely to land in the occupation or ownership of the owner of the culvert but to other people's land as well. That is a great mischief, and as our whole object is to make land produce the largest quantity of crops it does seem a great pity that land may be flooded on account of the negligence of a particular owner. I do not think that this can be my noble friend's intention. It is quite obvious that if a man has a culvert in his possession he ought to keep it free so that the water flows away and does not adversely affect his neighbour's land. It is really with an object of that kind, as I understand it, that this clause stands in the Bill.

LORD EMMOTT

I may also remind my noble friend that the consent of the Ministry is required in this case before it can be applied in a rural district.

LORD DYNEVOR

After what my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, I will not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD EMMOTT

I have a purely drafting Amendment to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 8, leave out ("Provided that before") and insert ("(3) Before").—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsections (2) and (3) of the clause, as amended. The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment for this reason. Subsection (2) authorises the Minister of Health by order to apply to any rural district or contributory place the provisions of this Bill. Those provisions, so far as I understand them, are mainly introduced in order to apply to urban districts. Conditions in rural districts are so different from those in urban districts that I do not wish to give the Minister of Health an opportunity, without consulting Parliament, of applying to a rural district provisions which may be very good for urban districts. I am aware that in the Act of 1907 a somewhat similar power was given to the Local Government Board, but events have marched very quickly since 1907. We do not in the least know who may or may not be the Minister in years to come and I sincerely hope that my noble friend Lord Emmott will accept this Amendment, which, so far as I can see, does not interfere with the principle of the Bill but does retain for Parliament the power to apply this Bill if they think necessary to rural districts. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 1 to 1:5, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD EMMOTT

My Lords, I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment because he knows very well, having studied the Bill, that only a few of the clauses in Parts II and III cannot be adopted by rural district councils. This clause is, unfortunately, misprinted in the Schedule. The Clauses should be 17 to 19, 21, 22, 24, 35, 44, 51 and 53. These clauses, roughly, are mainly meant, I admit, for urban districts, but the extension to a particular contributory place, such as a rural parish in a rural district, is possible. Where a section can be adopted by a rural district council Clause 4 (1) only applies for its adoption as a whole, but Clause 4 (2) meets the point when a rural district council desires to apply it to any rural district or contributory place within their district. The section, if desired, can be applied by order of the Minister. Clause 4 (2) is fully supported by the provisions in the previous Public Health Act. There are some rural districts which, in effect, are partly urban, and really to meet such cases it is desirable to maintain this sub section.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

After the explanation of the noble Lord, I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 13 inclusive agreed to.

Clause 14:

Public drinking fountains, seats, etc. in streets.

14. The local authority may, in proper and convenient situations in any street or public place, erect and maintain seats and drinking fountains for the use of the public and troughs for watering horses or cattle.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 14. The noble Lord: I desire to move the omission of this clause, not because I disagree with it or think it a bad clause, but in the interests of economy. As my noble friend Lord Balfour said on the Second Reading, there are not many horses left for which to provide troughs, and drinking fountains are already provided in many places by pubic benevolence. It is not, I think, necessary for the local authority to do it, and in the interests of economy I beg to move the omission of the clause. I know Lord Emmott is equally anxious with me not to spend money unnecessarily, or to put a further burden on the ratepayers, and I hope he will accept the omission of the clause.

Amendment moved-— Page 5, leave out Clause 14.—(Lord Banbury of Southern.)

LORD EMMOTT

I am really very sorry that I cannot meet the noble Lord on this particular Amendment. He agrees with me, and I am sure with the rest of your Lordships, that drinking facilities are very advisable and even necessary, but he fears that if this clause is passed there will be an outbreak of expenditure on the part of the local authorities, for the purpose of providing these troughs. I do not think that that is likely to follow. The last thing that they are likely to do where the rates are felt to be so high, is to provide these facilities over and above what is absolutely necessary. Nor do I think that the effect of this clause will be to reduce public benevolence, which has been so useful in this particular matter. The reason for the clause is that in the absence of statutory power neither private persons nor the local authority would have power to erect drinking fountains, because they would lay themselves open to an injunction for obstructing the highway. Indeed, a great many of those already erected have been erected at the risk of legal proceedings. Where a local authority finds fountains to be necessary, and they are not provided, I think for the sake of the children who use them, and the animals who need them, we ought to give this power.

LORD DANESFORT

Would it not be advisable before report to amend the clause to enable private persons, with the consent of the local authorities, to erect these drinking fountains, which we are told they cannot do at present? I suggest the addition of such words as "local authorities or any person authorised by them." That would get over the difficulty.

LORD EMMOTT

The noble Lord who understands the law, which I do not, will appreciate that I must be careful in answering any question of that kind. Having followed what he said, I do not at present see any objection and certainly will consider his suggestion.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I understand from the noble Lord that this clause will not have much effect, and if that is so I shall have much pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment. May I say, however, that I hope I shall receive consideration later on from the noble Lord on account of the way in which I have already met him.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Indication, of name of street]:

LORD EMMOTT

This Amendment is really drafting, in that it states what is really meant. As the clause stands I think it would be sufficient for the local authority to put up the name of one street, whereas, of course, they ought to put up the name of every street.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 23, leave out ("any") and insert ("every").—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21:

Prevention of water flowing on footpath.

21.—(1) The owner of any premises abutting on a street within an urban district shall, within fourteen days after the service of a notice in writing by the urban authority requiring him so to do, execute and thereafter maintain such down-pipes, channels or gutters as may be necessary to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, surface water from the premises flowing on to, or over, the footpath of the street, and if he fails to do so he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds and to a daily penalty not exceeding forty shillings.

(2) The provisions of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of Section seventy-four of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "twenty-eight days" for "fourteen days." The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment is to give a more reasonable period for complying with an order made by the local authority. The Bill says that the order must be complied with within fourteen days after service of a notice in writing by the urban authority requiring an owner to execute and thereafter maintain such down-pipes, channels or gutters as may be necessary to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, surface water from the premises flowing on to, or over, the footpath of the street. The owner may be away on holiday and might have difficulty in obtaining labour to do the work. I think the work should be carried out, but I hope the noble Lord will allow the longer period.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 31, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-eight").—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD EMMOTT

The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, appealed to me to be reasonable. I am going to accept this Amendment. There are precedents both ways and I have no objection to the longer period.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22:

For preventing soil, etc., from being washed into streets.

22.—(1) The urban authority may give notice to the owner or occupier of any lands abutting upon any street within their district which is repairable by the inhabitants at large, requiring him, within fourteen days after the service of the notice, so to fence off channel or embank the lands as to prevent soil or refuse, from such lands, from falling upon, or being washed or carried into the street, or into any sewer or gully therein, in such quantities as will obstruct the highway or choke up such sewer or gully.

(2) Any person to whom a notice under this section is addressed who shall fail; within fourteen days after the service of the notice, to execute the works therein specified shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds and to a daily penalty not exceeding twenty shillings.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "fourteen' and insert "twenty-eight." The noble Lord said: It is the same point both in the case of this Amendment and the one which follows.

Amendments moved—

Page 9, line 2, leave out ("fourteen.") and insert ("twenty-eight")

Page 9, line 10, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-eight").—(Lord Dynevor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23:

Lopping of trees overhanging highways.

23.—(1) Where any tree, hedge or shrub overhangs any street or footpath so as to obstruct or interfere with the light from any public lamp, or to endanger or obstruct the passage of vehicles or foot passengers, the local authority may serve a notice on the owner of the tree, hedge or shrub, or on the occupier of the premises on which such tree hedge or shrub is growing, requiring him to lop or cut the tree, hedge or shrub within fourteen clays so as to prevent such obstruction or interference, and in default of compliance the local authority may themselves carry out the requisition of their notice, doing no unnecessary damage, and may recover summarily as a civil debt the cost from the owner or occupier upon whom the notice was served.

EARL RUSSELL had on the Paper an Amendment, after "passengers," in subsection (1), to insert "or where any tree hedge or shrub prevents the drivers of approaching vehicles having such view as is necessary for safety." The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will notice that Lord Montagu of Beaulieu also has an Amendment to this clause. I understand that my Amendment is not acceptable, but the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite is more acceptable. At first sight it may appear that there is no actual difference between these two Amend-merits. There is, in fact, just this difference: in my Amendment any tree, hedge or shrub which prevented the drivers having a view necessary for safety might be dealt with. Under the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite they can only he dealt with if they overhang the road. As a matter of fact, my Amendment, I think, would make for a slightly greater public safety, but in the circumstances I shall not move it.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), after "passengers." to insert "or to obstruct the view of drivers of vehicles." The noble Lord said: I understand that this Amendment will be agreed to. It is really a corollary of an Amendment which I moved yesterday to another Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 19, after ("passengers") insert ("or to obstruct the view of drivers of vehicles").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD EMMOTT

I accept.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Power to grant licences for bridges over streets]:

LORD EMMOTT: My Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment. An Act of 1924 has been overlooked. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line. 39, leave out ("1922") and insert ("1924").—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 30 agreed to.

Clause 31 [Width of streets in, certain cases]:

LORD EMMOTT: I have two drafting Amendments here.

Amendments moved—

Page 14, line 1, leave out ("they") and insert ("the local authority")

Page 14, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("the local authority") and insert ("they").— (Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32:

Width of street where buildings erected on one side of street.

32. Where an owner proposes to lay out a new street upon land which adjoins or abuts on an existing highway, and buildings have been or are about to be erected on one side only of that highway, the local authority, in any case in which they are empowered to require such owner to widen the existing highway to the width prescribed for a new street by any byelaw or enactment with respect to the width of new streets (which width is in this section referred to as "the prescribed width") may, instead of requiring the existing highway to be widened to the prescribed width, by order permit such owner to widen the highway to the extent specified in the order, being a width not less than one-half of the prescribed width.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in Section seven of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act. 1907, as applied by this Act, an appeal shall not lie to a court of quarter sessions against the withholding or refusal by the local authority of an order under this section.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the moiety of the prescribed width of a new street to be laid out by an owner shall be measured from the centre line of the existing highway in the direction of the land on which buildings are to be erected.

LORD EMMOTT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the extent specified in the order, being a width not "and insert "such less width as may be specified in the order, so, however, that the distance between the centre line of the existing highway and the boundary (as extended) of the highway on the side adjoining the land of such owner shall not be." The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment to make absolutely clear and certain what is meant. Should your Lordships desire I will explain it at length, but in order to save time, if you will allow me I will move it now formally.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 5, leave out from the second ("to") to ("less") in line 6 and insert the said words.—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I move this to prevent the taking away of a right of appeal to Quarter Sessions against an order made by a local authority. Apparently there will be no appeal at all by the individual. Your Lordships are all aware of the saying that the King can do no wrong and we know that Government Departments claim, very often I believe legally, that they are the King. Now it seems to me that that saying is to be extended to local authorities and they are to be able to say: "You are to do this," "You are to do that," and there is to be no appeal at all. The individual at the present moment has a right of appeal to Quarter Sessions, of which this subsection would deprive him. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, lines 8 to 12, leave out subsection (2). —(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD EMMOTT

I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. This clause is really a concession to building owners. Section 7 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, which is applied by Clause 7 of this Bill, gives an appeal to Quarter Sessions to any persons aggrieved by the withholding of any order which may be made by a local authority under the Bill, but the object of subsection (2) is to negative this proposition and to provide that there should be no appeal against the refusal of a local authority to make an order under the clause allowing the concession which would he given by it to a building owner. The question at issue is really whether the local laws regarding the width of streets, as contained in the bylaws of the local authority or in their local Acts, should govern the matter and whether the local authority should alone have the power of allowing a departure from the local laws. Clearly the matter of streets, buildings, and so on, is an affair for the local authority; it is not an affair on which the local authority ought to be overruled by the justices. I am not quite sure that the noble Lord understood that, but that seems to be absolutely necessary. It would be taking away one of the legitimate functions of a local authority and handing it over to the justices in the long run. I am sure that is not what your Lordships would desire.

LORD DANESFORT

There are local authorities who are very competent and there are some who are not so competent. Is it not a fact that in a matter of this sort the local authority might improperly call upon an owner to widen a highway or to do something which would inflict a great hardship on the owner? If this Amendment is not accepted the owner has no appeal of any sort, but if the order is wrongfully made surely it is only reasonable to give the owner a right of appeal. I cannot see why you should not give the appeal to a competent authority, not for the purpose of overruling the authority in proper cases, but only of overruling them where they have gone wrong.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I should like to draw the attention of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark to this case, as I understand that what is proposed is that where an owner proposes to lay out a new street—which is what the right rev. Prelate said he wished to do in his speech the other day—then the authority may come in and say: "We refuse to allow you to do this unless you do certain things in regard to the widening of the highway which we desire." The man who is going to build, under the law as it is at present, has the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions to show that the requisition of the local authority is unjustifiable, but now his only alternative will be to say, "Very well, I will not make the street," and consequently it might happen that building, which is undoubtedly necessary at the present moment, might be stopped.

I certainly agree with my noble friend' Lord Danesfort, that some local authorities are competent and some are not. But in many cases of this sort it is not the local authority, it is their surveyor or official who is at fault, and he very often is a very tyrannical person, so that it is quite impossible to do anything with him, because the majority of the local authority always back up their officials. I strongly hope that the Government, who, I am sure, are very much in favour of the liberty of the subject, will support us in this Amendment.

THE MARQITESS OF SALISBURY

Any appeal to the Government to consider a provision under which there would be some possibility that an appeal should lie to a purely impartial authority must receive very careful attention, I agree. But before your Lordships, especially noble Lords who have spoken from the Benches behind me, arrive at a decision, I wonder whether they would consider for a moment exactly what the clause does. I am not quite sure whether they appreciate it. Under the model bylaws as they exist at present, an owner developing his estate would have to provide the whole of the road which is necessary; that is the present law. This clause is a mitigation of that law and it is intended to provide that where an owner only develops one side of a thoroughfare he need not provide the whole of the new roadway but only part of it. I think that is a legitimate concession. He is only developing one side, so why should be provide the whole roadway? This clause says that he need not any longer provide the whole of the roadway, but only half, or it may be less; that is a question of degree.

Who is to decide the point at which he is to be called upon to provide the road? Surely that is an administrative act. This is in the nature of a concession. How far is the mitigation to go. I am not sure whether my noble friends think that a Court of Quarter Sessions is the right authority to determine how far the line should go in developing the roadway, whether it should be half or less than half, or what it should be. Of course, if they think so, we will consider it. But surely that is an administrative question which it would be exceedingly difficult for a Court of Quarter Sessions to make up their minds about. They are not equipped for a purpose of that kind. It is not exactly a judicial proceeding at all, but an administrative proceeding. For that reason, as I understand it, the clause has been drafted as you see it. What I said I adhere to and if my noble friends press me, so far as I have any influence with your Lordships I shall certainly consider between now and the Report stage whether anything should be done. I thought, however, that I would like to put the difficulty to my noble friends so that they should see that the matter is not so easy as it seems.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am much obliged to my noble friend Lord Salisbury, but I may, perhaps, put this argument to him. As I understood it, he said that in the case of an owner desiring to develop only one side of a road this clause will give power to the local authority to say to him: "You need only develop one side of the road and need only make it of a certain width." Is that right?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is right.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I hope my noble friend will not think I am suspicious, but one has to remember human nature. What is to prevent a surveyor or one of the officials of a local authority standing in with the builder and giving him power to make a much narrower road than he ought? If this clause is omitted nobody in that town or district will have any right to say anything. If this clause is included they can appeal to Quarter Sessions. I tie not think I have heard of any cases where Quarter Sessions have done wrong under the Act of 1907, though there may be such cases; but as Quarter Sessions are generally an efficient body I think it is wise to give power of appeal to them or to some judicial body. If my noble friend would suggest another body I have not any particular objection; but I think there ought to be an appeal.

LORD EMMOTT

If our local county administration were in the hands of the justices, as I believe it was some years ago, there might be something in this, but all work of this kind is now handed over to the district council, whether of a municipality, an urban district or a rural district. I know that some of them are good and some are bad, but we cannot help that; it is part of our system. What I say is that it would not be fair to make the justices, whether in Petty Sessions or Quarter Sessions, the judges over the district council in an administrative matter of this kind. That would involve the justices going into a whole number of matters outside their purview. It is a very different thing when it comes to interfering in other ways with a man's property. There the justices are eminently suitable to judge the case. In regard to this clause it is not a matter which can fairly he put to the justices and it ought to be left to the local authorities, even to rural district councils.

LORD DYNEVOR

I really moved this Amendment as a matter of principle. I did not like the taking away from an individual of a right which he has at this moment. He can appeal now. That appeal is going to be taken away from him. But as my noble friend Lord Salisbury says that he is ready to give further consideration to the question—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Certainly.

LORD DYNEVOR

I will not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD EMMOTT moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon a previous one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, lines 30 to 34, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33:

Power to prescribe improvement line for widening streets.

(5) No new building, erection or excavation shall, after an improvement line has been prescribed. be placed or made nearer to the centre line of the street than the improvement line, except with the consent of the local authority, which consent may be given for such period and subject to such terms and conditions as they may deem expedient: Provided that the foregoing prohibition shall not affect any right of statutory undertakers for gas, water or electricity to make any excavation for the purpose of laying, altering, maintaining, repairing or renewing any main, pipe or electric line.

(8) The local authority may purchase any land not occupied by buildings lying between the improvement line and the boundary of the street. or any interest in such land, and the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, including the provisions with respect to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement, except Sections ninety-two and one hundred and twenty-three of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall extend to such land or interest in land.

(10) In the assessment of compensation for injurious affection, or in respect of a purchase of land, under this section, the benefits accruing to the person to whom the same shall be payable, by reason of the widening or improvement of the street, shall be fairly estimated and shall be set off against the compensation.

(11) In the assessment of compensation for a compulsory acquisition of land, in relation to which an improvement line has been prescribed under this section, regard shall be had to any compensation which may have been paid to any person in respect of the injurious affection of that land.

(14) Nothing in this section contained shall apply to or affect any property occupied or used by a railway company for the purposes of their railway without the consent of the company or any property vested in the owners, trustees or conservators, acting under powers conferred upon them by Parliament, of any canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour, and used for the purposes of the canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour, unless the consent of such persons is obtained by the local authority:

Provided that any such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any question whether or not such consent has been unreasonably withheld shall be determined by the Minister of Health.

(15) The powers conferred on the local authority by this section may be exercised by the county council as respects any main road maintained by the county council, and in relation to any main road so maintained the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect with the substitution of the county council for the local authority:

Provided that the county council shall consult the district council before the preparation by them of an improvement plan with respect to any main road maintained by the county council.

(16) The county council may contribute towards expenses incurred under this section by the local authority of any district within their area.

(17) Any expenses incurred by a county council under this section shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes, and money may be borrowed by a county council for the purposes of this section subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1888.

(18) Nothing in this section shall extend to any land specifically authorised by Parliament to be used for the manufacture or storage of gas, the generation of electricity, or as a pumping station or reservoir for water unless the consent of the undertakers is obtained by the local authority to the application to that land of the provisions of this section:

Provided that such consent of the undertakers shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any question whether or not such consent has been unreasonably withheld shall be determined by the Minister of Health.

LORD DANESFORT moved, in the proviso to subsection (5), to leave out "or" ["gas water or electricity"] and after "electricity" insert "tramways or light railways." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to give some protection to tramways and light railways while excavations are being made. If the words I propose are inserted the proviso will read as follows— Provided that the foregoing prohibition shall not affect any right of statutory undertakers for gas, water. electricity, tramways or light railways to make any excavation, and so on. There is a consequential Amendment immediately following, to leave out "or," where that word last occurs in subsection (5). I understand that my noble friend is prepared to accept these Amendments, and I beg to move.

Amendments inoved— Page 16, line 38, leave out ("or") and after ("electricity") insert ("tramways or light railways") Page 16, line 40, leave out ("or") and after ("electric line") insert. ("cable duct or other work or apparatus").—(Lord Danesfort.)

LORD EMMOTT

I would suggest to my noble friend a somewhat modified form of words which, I think, would meet his case absolutely: Strike out the words "for gas, water or electricity" in lines 37 and 38, so that the proviso would read— Provided that the foregoing prohibition shall not affect any right of statutory undertakers to make any excavation for the purpose of laying, altering, maintaining, repairing, or renewing any main, pipe electric line, cable duct or other work or apparatus.

That alteration simplifies the proviso.

LORD DANESFORT

I am much obliged to my noble friend. So far as I can see that meets my point exactly and I should be prepared to accept the suggestion.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Perhaps my noble friend would correct me. He desires to omit in lines 37 and 38 the words "for gas, water, or electricity."

LORD EMMOTT

That is right.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In line 40 to omit the word "or" and to insert at the end of that line "cable duct or other work or apparatus."

LORD EMMOTT

Yes.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

That covers Lord Danesfort's two Amendments, and I will put them in the form suggested by Lord Emmott.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR moved to leave out subsection (8). The noble Lord said: The subsection reads as follows: The local authority may purchase any land not occupied by buildings lying between the improvement line and the boundary of the street,… This seems to me to give most unnecessary power to local authorities to go in for land speculation. What are they going to do with this Lind when they have bought it? It does not seem to me that the claim, lays it down that they are bound to put the land into the street.

LORD EMMOTT

They are.

LORD DYNEVOR

I am very glad to hear that, but perhaps my noble friend will tell me where that occurs in the Bill.

LORD EMMOTT

I can only say that I am advised that that is the ease, and I am perfectly sure my advisers have only told me what is correct.

LORD DYNEVOR

I am glad to hear that the land is going to be put into the street, but what will happen if the local authority does not put it into the street? They cut the owner of the land clean off the street, leaving a narrow lane between him and the street which will belong to the local authority and which may prevent access from the back to the street. If my noble friend Lord Emmott will show me quite clearly that this land is bound to be thrown into the street my objection to it certainly disappears.

Amendment moved— Page 17, lines 21 to 29, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD EMMOTT

I think it was Lord Banbury of Southam who, on the Second Reading, spoke of this as being a land speculation clause. I can assure him that it is nothing of the kind. I may repeat what I said then, that the land purchased would have to be thrown eventually into the carriage- or foot-way of the street. It cannot be held up, and used permanently for any other purpose at all. A similar clause has been in force in London under an Act that some of your Lordships may know about, called Michael Angelo Taylor's Act, since 1817. That applies to London, and it is quite common in local Bills. Since 1917 it has appeared in seventeen local Acts, and in each instance the clause contained a power of compulsory purchase similar to that which would be given by subsection (8) of this clause. Furthermore, I do not know of any case in which objection has arisen from misuse. I believe it is perfectly safe.

LORD MERRIVALE

I should have thought that it was not quite plain upon the subsection as it stands. It is quite true there are phrases in the clause (which is a very long one, with multitudinous powers) which seem to contemplate that the land shall not be used otherwise than in connection with the thoroughfare, but there is no express prohibition. If my noble friend opposite says that he is advised by competent persons that the effect of the law as it stands is to operate as a provision, I should accept what he says, but I am very incredulous about it at present, and I should have thought it was desirable to ascertain whether it is necessary to incorporate in the subsection some words which will provide that the purpose shall be the purpose of an improvement of the highway.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There is no doubt whatever that the land must ultimately be thrown into the street, but, as the noble and learned Lord is aware, it is not always possible to widen the street to the full improvement line because there are buildings in the way, and it is only gradually, as it were, that the improvement line matures, if I may use such a phrase. It has to be fixed, and then, as occasion offers, the street is gradually widened to that extent, and the land ultimately must go into the street. There is no question at all about that, but it may not be possible for it to go into the street at the moment when the improvement line is drawn. There may be a long or a short interval, and during that period it is desirable tint the local authority should get control of the land, otherwise it may not be in their power to do so when the proper moment arrives for widening the street. I am quite certain the noble Lord opposite will agree—I should certainly suggest he should agree—that if there is any question whatever that this land may not ultimately belong to the street, that matter must be put right.

LORD MERRIVALE

The land should be held for that purpose.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble and learned Lord is perfectly correct-, and I presume that that is the intention of the clause. If it is not so, we must take precautions to see that it is so.

LORD DANESFORT

After the expression of opinion that we have had from a high legal authority, may I appeal to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to consider this matter between now and the Report Stage, and to put in words which will avoid litigation, which none of your Lordships are anxious to engage in personally and certainly you would not desire to throw upon others?

LORD EMMOTT

I certainly undertake to have this matter considered, and if words can be put in that make it perfectly clear, and improve the clause, I will be only too glad to do it. I may say, however, that under this clause land can only be purchased for the purpose of improving the street. If there is a building on it, it may not be possible to pull down that building at once, and, therefore, the land could not go into use at once, but it must he used eventually for the purpose of widening the street, unless there is some gross misuse of power. However, I will certainly consider the matter, and see whether some improvement can be made.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DYNEVOR moved to leave out subsection (11). The noble Lord said: I move this rather with the view of ascertaining what my noble friend, Lord Emmott, has in mind regarding the meaning of the subsection. It strikes me that it is an effort to get out of paying full compensation. The subsection reads: In the assessment of compensation for a compulsory acquisition of land. in relation to which an improvement line has been prescribed under this section, regard shall be had to any compensation which may have been paid to any person in respect of the injurious affection of that land. It seems to me that when the local authority acquire land or premises they ought to pay the market value, and if the premises have been injuriously affected already the lower price would show itself in the market value at the time. I rather think my noble friend Lord Emmott has something of this kind in his mind.

Suppose a case in which a tenant, some five years ago, received £500 because the forecourt were taken away when the road was widened for the purpose of making a tramway, and the landowner has said: "I will not ask for any compensation if you give £500 to the tenant, and the tenant will continue to pay to me the same rent as he paid before the forecourt was taken." We will assume this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, and the local authority now says: "We will buy the remainder of the premises." The market value of those premises at the moment, we will say, is £1,500, but the owner will not get £1,500, although that is the market value, because his tenant has, five years before, been given £500. That £500 will be deducted from the £1,500, and the owner will only get £1,000. I wish to know whether any interpretation of the subsection is correct, because if it is I do not think the subsection is right. The owner of the land ought to have the market value of his land at the time.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 1, leave out subsection (11).—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD EMMOTT

The sole object of this subsection is to prevent a man being paid twice over for the same thing. The subsection enables any person whose property is injuriously affected by the prescribing of an improvement line to obtain from the local authority compensation in respect of such injurious affection. The, claim to compensation for injurious affection may be made immediately after the improvement line has been prescribed, whereas the local authority may not purchase the strip of land between the improvement line and the street until a later date. The sole object of this sub- section is to secure that where compensation has been paid upon the improvement line being prescribed, the payment shall be taken into account when compensation is assessed for the compulsory purchase of the land at a later date. I think that if this were not in, a man would get double compensation in a way that your Lordships would not consider just.

LORD DYNEVOR

If that is what is meant the words "any person" should not be used. It should read "sum payable to the owner." That is the man who should not get double compensation. My point is that if yon pay compensation to "any person" the owner is to have that deducted from him. I think the noble Lord should alter the wording. I have no objection to words which would mean what the noble Lord has indicated.

LORD MERRIVALE

Perhaps it would meet the point if the words were altered in this way. Instead of providing for taking account of compensation paid to any person, define the obligation there as an obligation to take account of any compensation which may have been paid to the person claiming compensation his predecessor in title.

LORD EMMOTT

I think I had better have the matter considered before Report. I have explained what is meant, but I will have the matter looked into.

LORD DYNEVOR

I will not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD EMMOTT moved, in the proviso to subsection (14), to leave out "Provided that any such consent" and insert:— or (c) any land specifically authorised by Parliament to be used for the manufacture or storage of gas, the generation of electricity, or as a pumping station or reservoir for water, unless the consent of the undertakers is obtained by the local authority: Provided that any consent required by this subsection The noble Lord said: This Amendment, and also the Amendment to leave out subsections (15) to (18) inclusive are purely drafting. They do not alter the sense at all, and they are moved in order to make an immensely long clause a little shorter.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 27, leave out ("Provided that. any such consent") and insert the said words.—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 31, to page 19, line 17, leave out subsections (15) to (18) inclusive.—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment moved— After Clause 33 insert the following new clause:—

Extension to county councils of preceding section.

(".—(1) The powers conferred on the local authority by the last preceding section may be exercised by the county council as respects any main road maintained by the county council, and in relation to any main road so maintained the provisions of that section shall have effect with the substitution of the county council for the local authority:

Provided that the county council shall consult the district council before the preparation by them of an improvement plan with respect to any main road maintained by the county council.

(2) The county council may contribute towards expenses incurred under the last preceding section by the local authority of any district within their area.

(3) Any expenses incurred by a county council under this section shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes, and money may be borrowed by a county council for the purposes of this section subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1888.")—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34:

Notice to be given of declaration of streets.

34. If, as the result of proceedings taken by the urban authority under Section one hundred and fifty of the Public Health Act, 1875, whether before or after the commencement of this section, any street which is a thoroughfare shall be severed, levelled, paved, flagged, metalled, channelled, and made good (all such works being done to the satisfaction of the urban authority), then, on the application in writing of the greater part in rateable value of the owners of the houses or land in such street, the urban authority shall, within three months after the time of such application, by notice put up in such street, declare the same to be a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large, and thereupon such street shall become a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out Clause 34. The noble Earl said: The object in moving this clause out here is in order that it may be inserted after Clause 81, which will have the effect of removing it from the adoptive part of the Bill and making it compulsory. I understand the Amendment has been agreed to by all parties interested.

Amendment moved— Page 19, leave out Clause 34.—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD EMMOTT

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to

Clauses 35 to 37 agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, after Clause 37, to insert the following new clause:—

Agreement for combined drainage.

". If it appears to the local authority that two or more houses may be drained more economically or advantageously in combination than separately, and a sewer of a sufficient size exists or is about to be constructed within one hundred feet of any part of such houses, the local authority may when the drains of such houses are first laid consent to such houses being drained by a combined drain, and any such combined drain constructed in pursuance of this section shall for the purposes of the Public Health Acts be deemed to be a drain and not a sewer."

The noble Lord said: I am moving this new clause in order to meet a difficulty which has arisen. I find that if two or more private drains meet from the junction downwards the pipe then becomes a sewer, vested in and repairable by the local authority. But the Public Health Acts fail to give local authorities any right to go on private ground to clear or repair their sewers. My Amendment enables a local authority to combine drainage where they consider it desirable, and provides that in such a case the combined drain shall remain a drain and be repairable by the owner instead of becoming a sewer repairable by the local authority. In such a form the clause would enable agreements to be entered into by landowners and builders who so desired and obtained leave of the local authority.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 30, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD EMMOTT

I shall have to detain your Lordships for a few moments while I explain this question. The Act of 1875 says:— 'Sewer' includes sewers and drains of every description, except drains to which the word 'drain' interpreted as aforesaid applies, and except drains vested in or under the control of any authority having the management of roads and not being a local authority under this Act. 'Drain' means any drain of and used for the drainage of one building only, or premises within the same curtilage and made merely for the purpose of communicating therefrom with a cesspool or other like receptacle for drainage or with a. sewer into which the drainage of two or more buldings or premises occupied by different persons is conveyed. I know very little about these matters, but I understand that the difference between a drain and a sewer is one of the most technical, difficult, and debatable matters in all local government.

My noble friend Earl Beauchamp, in days that he may have forgotten, introduced a Bill in which an attempt was made to define these two things, and the Lord Chief Justice of that day said his Bill made confusion worse confounded. Although the noble Earl is much younger than I am that is some time ago. The subject is one of immense difficulty. I quite appreciate the noble Lord's desire. In many cases it is more convenient and economical to drain two or more houses than to put in separate drains; but where combined drains are put in they become a sewer, and in that event the combined drain is a sewer by virtue of the definition in the Act, and, as such, is maintained not by the owners of the houses but by the local authority. For this, among other reasons, a local authority is some times reluctant to lay combined drains. Many attempts have been made in public Bills to solve the problem.

The noble Lord's suggested new clause is based upon a provision which appears in a large number of local Acts. The local Act applying to Torquay is a specimen, and Section 42 of that local Act differs from the suggested new clause inasmuch as it empowers the local authority, not to consent to, but to order the construction of a combined drain and it also directs in what manner the cost of construction and maintenance should be apportioned among the various owners of the houses. The local Act clause also empowers the local authority to construct a combined drain themselves and recover costs from the owners. The difficulty of the proposed new clause is that it does not attempt to define the difference between a combined drain and a sewer, which is the essence of the problem. Having explained the matter as well as I can, I suggest that it would not be right to attempt at this late stage of this Bill to deal with a problem so difficult. The matter will be dealt with in the Bill amending the Public Health Acts which the Government propose to introduce at an early date and in which it is proposed to deal with the matter on more comprehensive lines. In these circumstances I suggest that the noble Lord should withdraw his Amendment. I do not think we ought to overload this Bill with clauses of this kind dealing with a question so difficult and complex.

LORD DYNEVOR

I am glad I have raised this question for, otherwise, I should have not heard the extremely interesting statement we have had from the noble Lord. But after what he has said, I am quite ready to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38 agreed to.

Clause 39:

Notice of intention to repair drains.

39.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to repair, reconstruct or alter the course of any drain which communicates with a sewer or with a cesspool or any other receptacle for drainage, without giving to the local authority at least twenty-four hours previous notice in writing of his intention so to do except in case of emergency.

LORD EMMOTT

I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 24, after ("person") insert ("except in case of emergency").—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "repair." The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) of this clause as it stands says: It shall not be lawful for any person to repair, reconstruct or alter the course of any drain which communicates with a sewer or with a cesspool or any other receptacle for drainage, without giving to the local authority at least twenty-four hours' previous notice in writing of his intention so to do except in case of emergency. I really think that it is carrying the interference of local bodies too far to say that a man may not even repair his own drain. I do not propose to leave out the words "reconstruct" or "alter." I propose to leave the clause as it stands as regards reconstruction or alteration, but I really think that a man might be allowed to repair his drain, leading to a cesspool, without giving notice to a local authority. I hope that my noble friend will accept this Amendment which, as we are often told, is a very little one.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 25, leave out ("repair").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD EMMOTT

I should like to explain to your Lordships what this is really intended to mean. In the first place, the position of the words "except in case of emergency" has been altered and they have been put at the beginning of the clause in order to make it quite clear that in case of emergency it is excepted altogether What really happens in regard to the repair of a drain? The noble Lord may always be able to be down at his country place and himself superintend the men who are doing a job of that kind, but there are many people who are not able to do so and for their sake it is infinitely better, on the whole, that repairs to drains should be superintended by the local authority, just as the construction of new drains has to be so superintended. I believe that it actually works in practice to the benefit of the private owner that the clause should stand as it now stands.

The noble Lord proposes that notice should not be required in the case of the repair of a drain. A drain running into a cesspool could not be put right without asking permission of the local authority. Since 1919 a similar clause has appeared in twenty local Acts, all of which deal with the repair of drains, though communicating with sewers rather than with cesspools, because cesspools would be uncommon in many of the large towns with which these local Acts are concerned. Section 69 of the Chatham Corporation Act and a sect-ion of an Act relating to Ashton-under-Lyne were in terms similar to this and covered the repair of drains communicating with sewers. The object of the clause is to secure supervision over draining work so as to ensure that the work is properly done. I quite sincerely believe that this course is desirable, and it is certainly not advocated with any desire to aggrandise local authorities.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I should like to point out that the noble Lord has an Amendment, immediately following mine, to leave out the words "except in case of emergency."

LORD EMMOTT

Those words have been inserted in a different place.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am glad to hear that, but I should like to point out that it is not always easy to get the consent of a local authority. Local authorities, especially in large towns, are not very easily moved. I had a case of my own here in London, where I had to get the consent of the local authority to open the street because the water main was leaking, and it took me a very long time and cost a great deal of trouble before I could get at the local authority or get any one to give consent. It may be that, if people have to wait in order to repair a sewer until the local authority has given consent, or at any rate until the local authority know that it is going to be done, you may have endless evils. You may have a smell continuing for a long time while there is nothing to be done and you are waiting for the local authority to decide what they are going to do. So far as my small experience goes, I have not that great confidence in local authorities that the noble Lord seems to have, and I do not think the work would be any better done because the local authority was superintending it than if it were done by the owner or occupier of the house with the help of an ordinary builder. As I have said, this applies only to cases of repair and not to cases of reconstruction or alteration, which would certainly be different. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will reconsider his attitude.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend who sits behind me. I am afraid that if this clause remains exactly in its present form it will be evaded, and on such a large scale as to be rather a scandal in respect of a provision of this kind. I believe that the House of Commons took a great deal of interest in, and spent a great deal of time over, this sewage clause. I am bound to say that most of your Lordships, if you found that anything was wrong with your drains, would not wait to give notice to the local authority, and I am so convinced that this attitude will be almost universal that I do not think that the word "repair" is of much value. That is my own opinion. I believe that this clause extends to country places, and confess that it does seem to me rather ridiculous that, if you have a drain running through your garden into your cesspool and something goes wrong with it, you should not be allowed to put it right without giving notice to the local authority. I really think that the noble Lord would be well advised to reconsider this word "repair" or, if he prefers, to think it over before the Report stage. I have no objection to that course, but personally I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment.

LORD EMMOTT

If I am appealed to, I will certainly have the matter considered before Report. I cannot promise to do anything then, but I will consider the matter with a perfectly open mind.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I hope that my noble friend will press his Amendment. It is equally convenient to the noble Lord opposite to consider this matter before Report and then, if necessary, to put the word back again. At present many things have been put off to the Report stage and there have been many cases in which I do not think that we have had a satisfactory explanation. As we know, this is a very complicated and difficult Bill, and I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will press the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is, indeed, a very complicated Bill, as the noble Duke would know even better if he had had to give it as much attention as I have, and I do not think that the course which my noble friend, the noble Duke, has proposed is an unfair one. I think that, if my noble friend opposite would consent to leave out this word, we might consider between now and Report whether anything more could be done. I do not agree that my noble friend opposite has not made considerable concessions to my noble friends who sit around me. A good many Amendments have already been inserted in the Bill. I am sure my noble friend will not mind my saying that.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I did not mean that at all.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Quite so. At the same time, I think that this word "repair" is a very debatable one, and I hope that my noble friend will not object to having it left out.

LORD MERRIVALE

Would it not be possible for the noble Lord to give way concerning this matter? Why should a man be required to tell a local authority if he has to open up a drain in his own place, communicating with his own cesspool? This is such an imposition of parental control over the citizen that it really is repugnant to one's ideas of what a, man ought to be allowed to do in his own premises. The public has nothing to do with it.

LORD EMMOTT

The remarks just made by my noble and learned friend Lord Merrivale show what an extraordinarily complicated matter this is. His argument is a perfectly good one, looking at one side of the case, but, if your Lordships will look at the other side of the case, you will see that allowing people to repair without notice will mean that a great many people's lives may probably be put in jeopardy owing to bad repairs and the escape of sewer gas in urban places. They will see there are two sides to this question. Therefore I should very much prefer to keep the Bill as it is, but I do not want to waste the time of the House in dividing, and if your Lordships wish to have the word "repair" taken out I do not want to divide against it, although the matter will certainly have to be reconsidered on Report.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (1), after "drainage", to insert "maintained by the local authority". The noble Lord said: Mine is a somewhat different Amendment. I want to limit the clause to places where there is a sewer maintained by the local authority. I should like to point out that Clause 39 is in the part of the Bill which can be extended by the Minister of Health to all rural areas and therefore every cottage and every house right away in the country with its own system of drainage, and the owner will not be able to repair, reconstruct or alter the course of any drain without the leave of the local authority. I think it would be better to put in these limiting words and confine it to drains which communicate with a sewer or with a cesspool maintained by the local authority.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 27, after ("drainage") insert ("maintained by the local authority").—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD EMMOTT

I sincerely hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. I may point out that Section 25 of the Public Health Act, 1875, makes it unlawful in any urban district to occupy any house newly erected or re-built unless and until a covered drain or drains have been constructed of such size and materials as may appear to the urban authority to be necessary, and this provision extends not only to a drain which empties into a sewer, but covers the case where the drain discharges into a cesspool. Therefore the urban authorities for fifty years have been given power to supervise the construction of drains discharging into cesspools, and I think it would be a strong order to alter that proceeding now. They have had the power for fifty years. So far as I know the cases which have been produced this afternoon by noble Lords are really imaginary cases, and I hope you will not consent to an alteration on the lines proposed.

LORD DANESFORT

May I ask the noble Lord about this section of the Public Health Act of 1875? Has that Act been found insufficient, and if not what is the necessity for this subsection at all? If the Act of 1875 is sufficient for the purpose, I do not see why we should introduce a new section, introducing a new principle, which prevents a man from dealing with his own drains, on his own ground, and for the purpose of his own house.

EARL RUSSELL

I should like the noble Lord to develop this matter a little more when he replies. Is Clause 39 limited to urban districts? As the noble Lord opposite says, if you have a house in a remote part of the country with drains through your own land running into your own cesspool, apparently under this clause you are not to divert that drainage by a yard without the consent of the local authority. Surely such entirely new legislation cannot be necessary.

LORD EMMOTT

The clause as proposed to be amended would read thus: It shall not be lawful for any person to reconstruct or alter the course of any drain which communicates with a sewer or with a cesspool, or any other receptacle for drainage, maintained by the local authority, without giving to the local authority, and so on. What I say is that for fifty years, in urban districts at any rate, the law has gone a great deal further than that, and applied it to drains not maintained by the local authority, and it would be a very serious alteration to make to alter the law now as suggested.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Although I share with my noble friends very largely the views which they have expressed, I confess I am a little nervous about this Amendment, because the clause applies to urban as well as rural districts. I agree with a great deal of what has been said with regard to what a man should or should not do with his own place in country districts, but these are general words and we must, of course, be very careful not to interfere with one of the fundamental principles of urban administration—namely, that the drainage, although it pertains primarily perhaps to a particular house, may, if badly constructed, affect the health of the whole district. That is an important matter and I should not like to alter the principle upon a Bill of this kind. It is a matter which was given a great deal of consideration in the House of Commons, and a great deal of feeling was displayed on the lines which I have indicated—namely, that it was absolutely necessary to safeguard public health. There cannot be two opinions on that subject. On the whole I rather counsel my noble friend not to press his Amendment, which affects urban districts as well as rural districts. I am sure his ingenuity will enable him to construct an Amendment which we may consider at a later stage, which would be limited to rural districts.

EARL RUSSELL

If this Amendment is negatived, or withdrawn, I should be prepared to move, after the word "drainage," to insert the words "in an urban district." That would, I think, meet the point raised by noble Lords opposite, and also safeguard the point raised by the noble Marquess.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

May I, having taken some interest in this matter, and being in agreement with noble Lords, make a suggestion? The Second Schedule contains a list of certain clauses in Parts II and III of this Act—and this clause is in Part III of the Act—which cannot be adopted by rural district councils. Would it not meet the point of noble Lords opposite if Clause 39 were added to this Schedule?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think that is a suggestion which is well worthy of consideration.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

There is a suggestion that we should insert the words "in an urban district," but if the object in view can better be gained by including this clause in the Schedule I do not object.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD EMMOTT

My Amendment to this clause is merely consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 21, lines 29 and 30, leave out ("except in case of emergency").—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 40 to 44 agreed to.

Clause 45:

Verminous articles.

45.—(1) If it appears to the local authority, on the certificate of the medical officer or sanitary inspector, that any articles in any premises used fur human habitation in the district are infested with vermin or by reason of their having been used by, or having been in contact with, any person infested with vermin, are likely to be so infested, the local authority at their expense may cause such articles to be cleansed, disinfected or destroyed, and if necessary for that purpose to be removed from the premises.

(2) Where a person sustains damage by reason of the exercise by the local authority of their powers under this section, and the condition of the article with respect to which those powers have been exercised is not attributable to his act or default, the local authority shall make reasonable compensation to that person.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 45. The noble Lord said: This clause deals with verminous articles. It gives power to the local authority, on the certificate of the medical officer or sanitary inspector, to enter into premises used for human habitation and to take any article which, in the inspector's opinion, are infested with vermin or, having been used by, or having been in contact with, any person infested, are likely to be so infested, and the local authority at the expense of the ratepayer may cause such articles to be cleansed or destroyed. Then there is a provision that if a person sustains damage by reason of the exercise by the local authority of these powers the local authority shall make reasonable compensation to that person.

Consider what might happen. It is to be presumed that a person who would be verminous or who would have articles likely to be infested with vermin would not be in very affluent circumstances, and if the local authority, through their medical officer or sanitary inspector, took some of his belongings and destroyed them, not on the ground that they were infested with vermin, but because, in the opinion of the local inspector, they were likely to be so infested, all the redress that this person would have would be to demand compensation from the local authority. He probably would have to go to a court of justice, possibly the county court. He would not have money, and he might be in a very serious position. It is grandmotherly legislation of a very strong order. You are giving to these inspectors a power which, in my opinion, they certainly ought not to have. The. Act of 1897 gives power to local authorities to deal with verminous places and verminous people, and I think that power is sufficient. I do not propose to alter the next clause, which deals with verminous houses, except to alter the penalty, but I think that if the local authority have power to deal with verminous houses they might abandon this power to enter houses and seize articles on the ground that they may possibly at some future date be infested with vermin.

Amendment moved— Page 24, leave out Clause 45.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD EMMOTT

There was a famous Bishop many years ago who said that he would rather sec England free than England sober. I do not like to parody that phrase by suggesting that my noble friend would rather see England free than England clean, but his speech does sound a little as if that were his feeling. This clause is all in the direction of the sanitary legislation and precautions that have been found necessary in recent years. Certainly in the course of my life people have become aware of the fact that disease is much spread by vermin. In the horrible condition in which Russia has been in recent years the amount of typhus has been simply appalling. That is spread by lice. Typhus has been stamped out in this country by sanitary legislation and by precautions carried on for many years. The health of the people has enormously improved, the death-rate has greatly diminished, and I think that the whole trend of public feeling is in favour of making more rigorous our efforts towards cleanliness.

They say that cleanliness is next to godliness. I do not know whether, when I was brought up, cleanliness—in practice not in theory—did not come almost as high as the other desirable quality. May I relate to the House one incident? I happen to have been for many years the chairman of the board of governors of a local secondary school. I remember a case coming before us in which a child, who was known as a "free placer," came with hair horribly infested with vermin. What I say is that for the sake of the freedom of the other children it is most desirable to have power to cleanse people who are in that condition, and to cleanse their clothing and belongings, or else you are practically not dealing with the case at all. That being so, I do think that the positive arguments for this clause immensely outweigh the odd case of some person who is not particularly clean, and who may be inconvenienced by the action of some local authority under it. I hope that your Lordships will add this clause to the Bill.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I do not object to a child with a verminous head being cleansed. The omission of this clause would not prevent that being done. All that this clause does is to say that certain articles may be taken, that is to say, an inspector may enter a man's house and, on the mere ipse dixit of this man—not that the article is verminous, but that it may possibly at some future time become verminous—the article may be taken and destroyed. I believe it was Bishop Wilberforce—

LORD EMMOTT

Bishop Magee.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

—who said he would rather see England free than England sober—or rather, compulsorily sober. Though I quite share with the noble Lord his admiration for cleanliness, I would certainly rather prefer to see England dirty than compulsorily clean. However, if your Lordships prefer the clause as it is, I will not press the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Clause 45 agreed to.

Clause 46:

Verminous houses.

(2) If the person on whom a notice under this section is served fails within the period specfied in the notice to comply with the requirements thereof, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds and to a daily penalty not exceeding forty shillings, and the local authority may, after the expiration of the said period, themselves carry out the work required by the notice, and recover the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by them in a summary manner from that person.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), to substitute "ten shillings" for "forty shillings". The noble Lord said: This is merely an alteration of the penalty. The clause deals with houses, and says that if a person on whom the notice under this clause is served fails, within the period specified in the notice, to fulfil the requirements thereof he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5 and to a daily penalty not exceeding 40s. I think that the daily penalty of 40s., in addition to the penalty of £5, is rather excessive.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 16, leave out ("forty") and insert ("ten").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD EMMOTT

There are local precedents for the proposal of the noble Lord, and I have much pleasure in accepting his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 47 agreed to.

Clause 48:

Cleansing of Verminous Persons.

48.—(1) Upon the application of any person, the local authority may, if they think fit, take such measures as may, in their opinion, be necessary to free that person and his clothing from vermin.

(2) Where it appears to the local authority, on a report from the medical officer, that any person or the clothing of any person, is infested with vermin or is likely to be so infested, if that person consents to remove to a cleansing station, the local authority may cause him to be removed to such station, and, if he does not so consent, then a petty sessional court, if satisfied on the application of the local authority that it is necessary that he or his clothing should be cleansed, may make an order for his removal to a cleansing station and for his detention therein for such period and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order.

(8) Upon the commencement of this section, the local authority shall cease to be the local authority for the purpose of the Cleansing of Persons Act, 1897, and any buildings, appliances or attendants provided by the local authority under that Act shall be treated as having been provided by that authority under the Public Health Acts. 1875 to 1907.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or is likely to be so infested." The noble Lord said: I do not object to the local authority who find a person kith clothes infested with vermin taking him and washing him, but I do object to their having the Bower to go to a man and say to him: "We think your clothing is likely to be infested with vermin; you had better be washed"—and at my expense as a ratepayer. I hope that the noble Lord will leave this out.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 42, leave out front ("vermin") to ("if") in line 43.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD EMMOTT

I do not attach any particular importance to these words, and I shall accept the noble' Lord's Amendment. The clause as drawn reads rather funnily. It says:— Where it appears to the local authority … that any person, or the clothing of any person, is infested with vermin or is likely to be so infested, if that person consents to remove to a cleansing station … It looks as if the cleansing station was likely to be infested with vermin.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD EMMOTT

The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment, and has the object of clearing up the language which I have just read. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 43, leave out ("if that person consents to remove") and insert ("and that person consents to be removed").—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out all words in subsection (2) after "removed to such station." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is the deletion of the compulsory part of the subsection. As it stands at present the subsection provides that the local authority may cause a person suspected of being verminous to be removed to a cleansing station, and, if he does not so consent, then a petty sessional court, if satisfied on the application of the local authority that it is necessary that he or his clothing should be cleansed may make an order for his removal to a cleansing station and for his detention therein for such period and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order. It seems to me that it is a rather strong order to take a man and wash him compulsorily against his will and detain him for as long as a court of summary jurisdiction, at the request of a local authority, may decide that he is to be detained. I am not quite certain that as I read it the petty sessional court is bound to do this if satisfied, on the application of the-local authority, that it is necessary that a man or his clothing should be cleansed. I do not know how they are to ascertain whether he is a person who is infested with vermin or not, and they must be satisfied apparently by the application of the local authority. I think that is carrying an order a little too far, and I think my noble friend might leave the subject some liberty in the matter.

Amendment moved:— Page 26, line 2, leave out from ("station") to the end of line 8.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD EMMOTT

If these words were left out I am afraid the clause would not be worth very much because you would not be able to cleanse the people whom it was most necessary to cleanse. The Cleansing of the Persons Act of 1897 enabled any person who might be infested with vermin to apply to the local authority and to be cleansed. This provision has been inserted with the object of enabling the local authority to require the compulsory cleansing of persons. The absence of any such power was one of the reasons why these provisions were passed in relation to cleansing verminous persons. Since 1919 a provision similar to Clause 48 has been included in 28 local Acts and the Local Legislation Committee, belonging of course to another place, suggested that this particular clause should be included in any General Bill for the amendment of the Public Health Act. Perhaps I might satisfy the noble Lord that under Section 7 of the Public Health (Amendment) Act, 1907, which is applied by Clause 7 of the Bill, an appeal will lie to Quarter Sessions against any order of a petty sessional court under the clause. Subsection (6) of the clause provides that no charge should be made by the local authority for the cleansing of a person or his removal to or maintenance in a cleansing station. I fear that this provision, which may in a certain sense be regarded as a restraint on the liberty of some subjects, is absolutely necessary to make the clause effective.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Could not some words be inserted limiting the time during which a man may be detained? I do not know what is the feeling of your Lordships' House, but if we desire to maintain the liberty of the subject there ought to be a provision in the Bill limiting the period of his detention under the clause.

LORD EMMOTT

The court will decide that and it is only in flagrant cases that they would desire to detain any one for longer than was necessary.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I have made my point.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does the noble Lord desire to press his Amendment?

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Yes.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD EMMOTT

The remaining Amendment to this clause is purely drafting and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("by the local authority under that Act") and insert ("under that Act by the local authority").—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 49 to 53 agreed to.

Clause 54:

Watercourse choked up to be a nuisance under Public Health Act, 1875.

54. Any part of a watercourse which is situate within the district of art urban authority, and is so choked or silted up as to obstruct or impede the proper flow of water along the same, and thereby to cause, or render probable, an overflow of the watercourse on to land and property adjacent to the watercourse, or to hinder the usual effectual drainage of water through the same, shall be deemed to be a nuisance within the meaning of Section ninety-one of the Public Health Act, 1875, and all the provisions of that Act relating to nuisances shall apply to every such watercourse, notwithstanding that the same may not be injurious to health.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, after "Any part of a watercourse," to insert "not being a river." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of some importance. The clause provides that— Any part of a watercourse which is situate within the district of an urban authority, and is so choked or silted up as to obstruct or impede the proper flow of water…shall be deemed o to be a nuisance within the meaning of Section 91 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and all the provisions of that Act relating to nuisances shall apply to every such watercourse"— and so on. Your Lordships will notice that only a "watercourse" is referred to in the clause. There may be some inquiry as to the exact meaning of the word "watercourse." I am informed that it is possible that a watercourse is a river, or a river is a watercourse. My Amendment has the object of making it certain that the clause shall not apply to a river and that local authorities shall not call upon a riparian owner to clean out the whole of a river at an expense which might run into hundreds or thousands of pounds. The river might be silted up through no fault of the owner and he might be told that he must have it cleaned out. Then Clause 54 might be applied to a rural district. I desire to limit the right of local authorities to call for the cleaning of too big a watercourse, in other words a river. Therefore I move the insertion of the words "not being a river," and I hope that my noble friend will see his way to accept them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 14, after ("watercourse") insert ("not being a river").—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD EMMOTT

Water seems to be very troublesome in regard to this Bill. It is very difficult to distinguish a drain from a sewer, as I have, already explained to your Lordships, and I think it would require a very clever man to define where a watercourse ends and a river begins. This is one of the difficulties which arise is regard to this, and I must say that I think it would be rather ridiculous to suppose that any local authority would be so unreasonable as to require a riparian owner on the banks of the Thames to prevent the Thames being silted up. In any case if they did so there would be an appeal to Quarter Sessions.

I think the noble Lord is somewhat unduly afraid of what may happen under this provision, and I would suggest that I should be willing to put at the end of Clause 54 an Amendment to this effect: Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to impose any liability on any person other than the person by whose act, default or sufferance the nuisance arises or continues. I may explain that by Section 94 of the Public Health Act, 1875, the local authority, if satisfied of the existence of a nuisance, are to serve a notice on the person by whose act, default or sufferance the nuisance arises or continues, or if such person cannot be found, on the owner or occupier of the premises on which the nuisance arises, requiring him to abate the same. The suggested proviso would exempt the owner or occupier from liability under this section in any case where the local authority could not say the nuisance arose or continued through the act, default or sufferance of the owner or occupier himself. Thus, if the watercourse became silted up through natural causes the owner or occupier could not be held liable for any nuisance thereby arising unless it could be shown he was under some legal obligation to prevent silting. I believe that would effect what the noble Lord desires adequately. At any rate, I offer him that.

LORD MERRIVALE

In regard to whether that form of words adequately meets what the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, desires, to leave a man answerable for his acts or defaults, seems to be proper enough, but sufferance is another matter. I am not sure what a man's position is with regard to a stream running through his property, whether, if he executed works, he could prevent silting. If he has no obligation to execute them, and is not guilty of any act which causes silting or nuisance, or of any breach of duty or default, why, for mere inaction, should he be made guilty of a nuisance, and exposed, as the noble Lord has pointed out, to serious liability for what at present he is not liable under the law as it stands?

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

May I suggest that this is an Amendment consideration of which might, perhaps, be postponed until the Report Stage, so that we may have a little time to consider what will be the effect of the carefully drafted wording between now and then Anything to do with rivers, as your Lordships are aware, is a serious matter, and an interpretation of damage arising from flooding is one of the most difficult things to establish that can be imagined. For instance, the cause of the silting up of a river may be flooding, or the cause of the flooding may be silting up. It is by no means certain how many causes are at work when a river is silted up, and after what, has fallen from the noble and learned Lord and from Lord Dynevor, I think the best plan would be that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill should consider some words for submission when we get to the Report Stage.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

May I suggest that we should put in the words "artificial watercourses"?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There is an evident objection to considering the words which the noble Lord opposite has read out at the Table without your Lordships having them before you in print. I do not think it would be fair to ask the House to consider them without seeing them in print. This is evidently a most difficult question, and I feel the full force of everything that has been said. I am not really happy about the word "river." I do not know what the definition of a river is; therefore I am not happy with the Amendment of my noble friend. I do not think we could put in the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite simply after hearing it read across the Table, dealing as it does with a subject of such great complication, especially as the noble and learned Lord is not satisfied as to the full meaning of the word.

LORD EMMOTT

I do not in the least press that this Amendment should be put in. I merely offered it as an alternative suggestion in order to try to meet the noble Lord. Let us adjourn the matter till the Report Stage.

LORD DYNEVOR

I really do not know what is the best thing to do in the circumstances. My noble friend Lord Emmott has just said that the local authority is not likely to come down on a riparian owner and compel him to clean a big river, but I have a very strong remembrance of a Private Bill upstairs in which I was interested, and in which there was something of that kind. Actually the word "river" was put into a Private Bill, but I am glad to say I was able to get it moved out. I want some definition put in of this watercourse, even if it is a bad one. I would rather have "not being a river" than nothing at all, because then it does give the owner a chance of going to arbitration, or appealing to a court of law if he is told to clean out the watercourse. Certainly a watercourse would include a river, and the owner ought not to be called upon to clean out a river. I should like to press now for my words "not being a river."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If it is any use to the noble Lord I will promise him to go into the question with the Ministry of Health, and see if we cannot find better words.

LORD DYNEVOR

That is of great use, and I certainly accept my noble friend's suggestion

LORD DANESFORT

Perhaps the noble Marquess will also consider the suggested Amendment read out by Lord Emmott, which, I think, is exceedingly important, saying that a man shall not be liable for silting up except through his own act or default. I think that would be a valuable protection.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54 agreed to.

Clause 55 [Power of loca1 authority to defray cost of works]:

LORD EMMOTT

The Amendment standing in my name to this clause is drafting.

Amendment moved:— Page 29, line 29, after ("Act") insert ("or may").—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 56:

Further powers as to parks and pleasure grounds.

56.—(1) The following powers shall be added to the powers conferred upon the local authority by Section seventy-six of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907 (in this section called "the principal section"), with respect to any public park or pleasure ground provided by them or under their management and control, namely, powers—

1. (a) to provide, or contribute towards the expenses of, any concert or other entertainment given in the park or ground;
2. (b) to enclose, for the purpose of such concerts and entertainments, any part of the park or ground not exceeding one acre or one-tenth of the area of the park or ground, whichever is the greater; and
3. (c) to charge for admission to any such concerts or entertainments provided by themselves, or to let the part of the park or ground so enclosed to any person for the purpose of providing the same, and to authorise that person to charge for admission thereto.

(2) Any part of the park or ground enclosed under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of the principal section for the purposes of bands of music, may be used for any of the purposes of concerts or other entertainments.

(3) Any expenditure of the local authority, in the exercise of their powers to provide or contribute to a band under subsection (1) of the principal section and any expenditure of the local authority in the exercise of their powers under subsection (1) of this section, shall not when added together exceed in any one year an amount equal to that which would be produced by a rate of one penny in the pound on the property liable to be assessed for the purpose of the rate out of which the expenses of the park or ground are payable, as assessed for the time being for the purposes of that rate, or such higher rate in the pound as may be approved by the Minister of Health, and subsection (3) of the principal section shall cease to have effect.

(4) In the foregoing provision of this section, the expression "expenditure" means net expenditure after allowing for the receipts arising from the exercise of the power to provide or contribute to a band, or of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of this section.

(5) When any part of the park or ground has been set apart by the local authority for the purpose of cricket, football or any other game or recreation under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the principal section, the local authority may charge reasonable sums for the use thereof for that purpose.

(6) Part VI. of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907 shall have effect as if the powers given to local authorities by this section were included amongst the powers given to local authorities by the principal section.

LORD ASKWITH moved to add to subsection (1)— Provided that the following restrictions shall have effect with respect to any concert or other entertainment provided by the local authority under this section, that is to say:—

1. "(i) No stage plays shall be performed, no variety entertainment shall be given, and no concert party shall take part therein; and
2. "(ii) No cinematograph film, other than a film illustrative of questions relating to health or disease, shall be shown; and
3. "(iii) No theatrical costumes, scenic or theatrical accessories shall be used; and
4. "(iv) No person other than those ordinarily employed on the concert, as distinguished from the theatrical or variety stage, shall take part therein."

The noble Lord said: Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 56 says that a local authority may provide or contribute towards the expenses of any concert or other entertainment giver in a park or grounds, and later on it says that any park or ground enclosed for the purposes of bands of music may be used for any of the purposes of concerts or other entertainments. The extension to which the words "other entertainments" may give rise may, perhaps, be illustrated by what quite recently occurred when the Corporation of Hastings got special powers for another entertainment. They gave an entertainment consisting of equilibrists, tumbling clowns, acrobatic dancers, a performing donkey, and a Mr. and Mrs. Felix, described as comic cats. That was in the constituency of the Minister of Education. On another occasion at Harrogate there appeared the famous American Monologuist, the performing horse and wire walker.

This sort of entertainment is given at the expense of the Corporation and is an encroachment upon the theatrical and variety artists' profession. The Amendment I propose is designed to prevent that, and I bring it forward at the request of the theatrical industry and the cinematograph industry. The object of the Amendment is that these entertainments shall be restricted so that no stage plays shall be performed, and no variety entertainments given and no concert party shall take part in the entertainments in these parks. I may perhaps say that the entertainment of a "concert party" is not the same as an ordinary concert. I have had it defined for me, and I am told that concert parties are a very well known and well defined form of entertainment, and consist of five or six artists, sometimes dressed in flannel trousers and cricket blazers, sometimes in evening dress with short jackets, and by no means generally what could be called theatrical costume. There is a form of entertainment known under the name of Co-optimists, an admirable production, which I trust most of your Lordships have seen. This is the most elaborate kind of entertainment of this sort that has yet been introduced. The concert parties can give a succession of songs and items of different kinds generally with the piano. In a paper called the Stage which is a great advertising paper for engagements, the difference is very distinctly brought out in the advertisements. There is a whole column headed "Concert Party Artists."

The second restriction suggested is that no cinematograph film, other than a film illustrative of questions relating to health or disease, shall be shown; thirdly, that no theatrical costumes, scenic or theatrical accessories shall be used, and, lastly, that no person other than those ordinarily employed on the concert, as dis- tinguished from the theatrical or variety stage, shall take part therein. The permission to pay out of the rates for concerts and entertainments should not be so extended as to infringe on the theatrical or variety professions.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 16, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Askwith.)

LORD EMMOTT

There has been a great deal of discussion, and there is a general desire, on the part of the promoters of the Bill, to meet the legitimate wishes of those who are interested in giving entertainments and who do not want to see unfair municipal competition in regard to this matter. To a large extent I am perfectly willing to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, but I very much prefer the form of that of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. I desire to meet the wishes of the House in this matter; and Lord Jessel's Amendment, which is agreed to, I understand, by all parties who have been discussing the matter, is a more satisfactory form in one or two respects than that of the noble Lord, Lord Askwith. It may shorten the time if I tell your Lordships that as regards the rest of the clause I think the simplest way would be not to accept the Amendment restricting the power of the Minister of Health to a charge of a 1d. rate, which is the law at present, but to allow a maximum of a 2d. rate. I do not think there should be unlimited power at all. I am saying this now in order to save the time of the House as much as possible.

LORD JESSEL

I do not want to labour the point, but I think the Amendment which I have put on the Paper, limiting the power to a 2d. rate, secures the purpose much better than that moved by the noble Lord. Of course, that is for your Lordships to judge, but I am glad the noble Lord has accepted the principle of limiting the rate to 2d.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

I do not know whether your Lordships remember a summer's day two years ago when we gave way, some of us, to our idealism and enthusiasm. We did not absolutely carry it, but we obtained a good deal of sympathy with the idea of national subsidies, possibly the erection of theatres, to conduct theatrical enterprises and, in fact, possibly with municipal subsidies, and all this in the interests of the raising of the standards of art in cases where the commercial principle entirely failed as an instrument of doing anything of the kind. I, for one, should regret extremely to see anything done which created an unfair competition or did anything to endanger the existence of private enterprise in theatres, from which the public gain so much advantage. But it does remain the fact that there comes in the pure commercial principle which has not given you all that you need, and those are the cases in which even foreign Governments, even the very modern Republican Governments lately established have assented to the principle of subsidy on the ground that national encouragement of theatrical art is something which tends to raise standards better than you can get by any other means.

Is it desired, does the noble Lord desire, do my noble friends behind me desire, that this mild amount of municipal subsidy for municipal support should be given to some society which, in the pure interests of art (which is the interest of education, and that is the ultimate end of all dramatic art) proposes to give, at probably not remunerative prices, some open-air play, possibly Shakespeare, in circumstances which do not amount to anything like dangerous competition with any existing theatrical enterprise? I confess that I am not ready with a formula which would rule out such performances from the operation of the Amendment, but I hope that before the Report stage is taken we may see something done which will not wholly relegate to the regions of anathema any proposal that there should be, anything like municipal encouragement given to the raising of standards in ways in which the commercial principal does not operate to do so.

LORD GAINFORD

I hope this view will not be pressed at the present time. There is a good deal of controversy between those who are anxious to extend municipal enterprise in the direction suggested and those who have already put money into theatres and cinemas and entertainments in our various towns. This Amendment, I have been assured, is one which has been agreed to by municipal associations and by cinema associations, and having regard to the desire to get this Bill through with as little controversy as possible I hope the Amendment down in the name of Lord Jessel will be accepted.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I listened with great pleasure to the speech of Lord Stuart of Wortley, but may I point out to him that one of the objections to this clause is that it may impose a very serious burden on the ratepayer? The noble Lord, although he will not accept my Amendment to limit the rate to 1d., is prepared to accept an Amendment limiting it to 2d. What we desire is not to put a further burden on the bark of the ratepayer, which is nearly broken as it is. It would be an excellent thing, no doubt, to promote Shakespeare and other plays, but we cannot afford it at the present moment. That is my reason for objecting to this clause.

I have in my hand a bill advertising a concert, I think at Harrogate, for a Sunday last June. I commend this bill to the notice of the right rev. Prelates. It mentions, among other things, that the concert takes place every night in the week at eight, except Thursday when it commences at 8.30, and on Sunday evenings at 8.30. It gives the names of the performers, and among them is what is called the wonderful horse "Pogo." This is what you may get if this principle is extended. I do not know whether the wonderful horse "Pogo" appears on Sunday evenings, but at any rate I think on Sunday evenings people should go to church and not attend municipal concerts at the expense of the ratepayers.

LORD ARNOLD

I should like to say one word on this matter. I submit that the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, has expressed his willingness to accept is very strict in its wording. Personally I find myself very much in sympathy with the observations of the noble Lord had seen his way to respond Wortley. The question is really a difficult one, and I could have wished that the noble Lord opposite, Lord Stuart of to the, suggestion that some further consideration should be given to the matter. I do not wish to argue the question, which involves very big issues, but is it not a fact that many of the objections which may be urged in this matter could have been urged in the past against such degree of municipal activity in these directions as does now take place? I think that is undeniable. I must offer this word of protest against the acceptance of the Amendment which, as I say, is a very strict one, unless there is to be some further consideration between now and Report.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I venture to hope that my noble friend Lord Emmott will accept this Amendment and will not extend it on Report. I do not, of course, wish to call in question the sort of entertainments with which we are familiar, and which are already permitted, in the way of music in public. These, I believe, are very much appreciated by the public. I do not always agree with my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam—I wish I did—but I must say that I think we ought to be very careful not to extend the burdens upon the ratepayers more than we can possibly help. These entertainment ventures are sometimes financially successful, but I should think that very often, in the case of a local authority, they are financially unsuccessful and the result is a burden upon the rates, I think that we must learn to realise that we are no longer a very rich country. We are rather a poor country, and it is absolutely essential that we should lay down certain conditions in these matters and not go beyond a certain point. I am particularly gratified to hear that the noble Lord opposite is going to accept the second Amendment. I think that it is a great improvement to the Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will agree to this course

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

May I say one word of personal explanation? I did contemplate, and still believe, that it is possible for a performance to be given which does not cost the ratepayers a single penny. The site is often lent without cost, and all the expenses are probably borne by the idealists who arrange the performance.

LORD ASKWITH

May I suggest to the noble Lord that he should accept my Amendment and then make any alteration during the Report stage that may occur to him as proper? If he will look at the two Amendments, one standing in my name and the other in that of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, he will find that the latter has been supplied to satisfy the cinematograph industry. But the theatrical industry are not satisfied with it. The words "scenic accessories" have been altered in the cinematograph memorial, and the theatrical industry think that the words put forward there will not enable the difference between concerts and concert parties to be properly distinguished. The words "concert parties" were agreed to by the Ministry of Health, as I am informed, and there was no question about their not being in the Bill.

LORD EMMOTT

I can only say that I think it is the general feeling of the House, and it is certainly my own preference and that of those who are promoting this Bill, that we should take the form suggested by Lord Jessel rather than that of my noble friend Lord Askwith. I should like to remind the House that we are not now discussing what is the maximum limit to which municipal enterprise in some special case may go, or the great service that may be rendered to art in any form by some exceptional privilege granted here and there. This is the least common measure. It is a least common measure Bill, which we are applying to the whole country. The general idea is to apply, under an adoptive system or, in some parts, without the necessity for adoption, measures for the whole country. In those circumstances we cannot, and ought not, to go to the extreme limit. We ought rather to keep within reasonable bounds, and that is why I ask your Lordships to accept Lord Jessel's Amendment if you are willing to do so.

LORD OLIVIER

May I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether stage plays are to include pageants or representations of Shakespeare's "As You Like It" as a pastoral play? These things are very often produced and are very suitable for representation on municipal properties?

LORD EMMOTT

This, of course, opens up a very large question, which has been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley. I would rather confine myself to the point that we are seeking to put into a common form a number of provisions suitable to local authorities and, that being the case, I think that we must not go too far in this matter. I do not consider that I need define every exact limitation here, and I think this is as far as your Lordships should be asked to go at the moment.

LORD MERRIVALE

Might I point out to noble Lords, and especially to Lord Stuart of Wortley, that the restriction here is not a restriction against entertainments provided by the enterprise of public spirited societies? It is a restriction with respect to entertainments provided by the local authority. My noble friend and others who are ready to give pageants, and so on, at their own cost can arrange with the local authorities to give them facilities.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

It might be argued that the loan of the piece of ground was a subsidy of a sort.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendment before the House is the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Askwith.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

For the purpose of assisting the procedure of your Lordships' House, may I ask whether my noble friend Lord Askwith is going to persist in his Amendment? I agree with him in the main, but, as the noble Lord in charge of the Bill prefers the other Amendment, I do not know whether the noble Lord will think it worth while to divide the forces in favour of his Amendment. I think, moreover, that there are some words in Lord Askwith's Amendment which are a little difficult to construe. I think, for instance, that the words— no person other than those ordinarily employed on the concert, as distinguished from the theatrical or variety stage, shall take part therein are a little difficult to interpret. The words "ordinarily employed on the concert stage" are open to the objection that amateurs might be included. That would cause a difficulty. Also it does not follow that persons ordinarily employed on the concert stage might not take part in other things which might otherwise have been forbidden, such as a variety entertainment. On the whole, I should have thought that the words of Lord Jessel's Amendment were rather more precise, but, of course, the noble Lord is an extremely good draftsman, and I do not want to put my authority against his. I would suggest, however, flat we should select one Amendment or the other, and, since the noble Lord opposite prefers the latter Amendment, I think it would be wiser to take the decision of the House upon that.

LORD ASKWITH

I suppose that I shall have to try to consult the people connected with this matter as to whether they can suggest an Amendment to Lord Jessel's Amendment. I have a letter in my hand which suggests that it is put in by the cinematograph people without consultation with the theatrical people. The theatrical people have exactly the same words regarding cinematographs and, in addition, their own words. Consequently some alteration will be necessary to satisfy the theatrical people. I do not know if the noble Lord would consent to insert the words "scenic or" before the word "theatrical" in the last line of Lord Jessel's Amendment.

LORD JESSEL

I have been approached by theatres as well as cinemas and, having judged the whole matter, I was under the impression that my Amendment was more drastic in the interests of the theatres. Not only am I acting on behalf the cinemas, but if my noble friend likes to put down an Amendment, I am not jealous of his Amendment. I am merely trying to serve the same interests as he is. If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill prefers Lord Askwith's Amendment, he is certainly at liberty to use any words of my Amendment that he chooses.

EARL DE LA WARR

I suggest to your Lordships that we come here to legislate for the good of the community, and that we do not come here to be run by theatrical associations or cinemas. I have noticed throughout the discussion that the only interests which are considered are the interests of the theatres, and not the wants and interests of the municipalities or local authorities, who are the community and the ratepayers.

LORD EMMOTT

I did not quite catch the words given by my noble friend Lord Askwith. Would he be good enough to repeat them?

LORD ASKWITH

They would make subsection (iv) of Lord Jessel's Amendment read as follows: "No scenery, theatrical costumes or scenic or theatrical accessories shall be used."

LORD EMMOTT

I think, to secure agreement, I had better accept that, and in that case I need not discuss the matter further. Will Lord Askwith withdraw his Amendment or move it in this form?

LORD ASKWITH

I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I will now put Lord Jessel's Amendment, amended in the way suggested by Lord Askwith—namely, by the insertion, after the word "or" in subsection (iv), of the words "scenic or."

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 16, at end insert ("Provided that the following restrictions shall have effect with respect to any concert or other entertainment provided by the local authority under this section, that is to say:—

1. "(i) No stage play shall lie performed; and
2. "(ii) The concert or other entertainment shall not include any performance in the nature of a variety entertainment; and
3. "(iii) cinematograph film, other than a film illustrative of questions relating to health or disease, shall be shown; and
4. "(iv) No scenery, theatrical costumes or scenic or theatrical I accessories shall be used."—(Lord Jessel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "purposes of that rate." The noble Lord said: The effect of my Amendment would be to leave the rate at a penny. I understand that Lord Emmott is prepared to accept Lord Jessel's Amendment, which would limit the rate to twopence. I should much prefer to see it limited to a penny. I am not sure whether we have the power to impose a charge, and Lord Jessel's Amendment would impose a charge, and that would raise a question of privilege, which will have to be waived in another place. My Amendment takes away a charge. With regard to what was said by Lord De La Warr on the Labour Benches, my endeavours are not in the interests of theatrical people but the interests of the ratepayers, whose pockets I desire to save. I am in your Lordships' hands, and if you prefer Lord Jessel's Amendment I will not press mine, although I do prefer it. I will, however, formally move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 31, leave out from ("rate") to the end of line 34.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD EMMOTT

I understand that Lord Banbury does not press his Amendment if I am going to accept Lord Jessel's Amendment. Of course, technically it may be that we are infringing the privilege of the Commons, but I think we may be justified in making the suggestion in this case, and I hope it may not be turned down in another place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD JESSEL moved, after "purposes of that rate," to insert "not exceeding twopence." The noble Lord said: I should like to say that I altogether repudiate the charge that I am acting in the interests of anybody, except the ratepayers. I am opposed to municipal trading, and for that reason I put down the Amendment which I was asked to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 32, after ("rate") insert ("not exceeding twopence").—(Lord Jessel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 56. The noble Lord said: I take this course because I do not believe in municipal trading, even if it results in a profit. In nine cases out of ten it results in loss, and I do not believe the municipalities ought to take the money of the ratepayers in order to compete with other ratepayers who are endeavouring to earn an honest livelihood by trading, whether theatrical trading or in any other way. However, as Amendments have been accepted I am inclined to think that I shall not get much support for my Motion, but I will formally move.

Amendment moved— Pages 29 to 31, leave out Clause 56.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 57 to 61 agreed to.

Clause 62:

Removal to hospital of infectious persons suffering front pulmonary tuberculosis.

62.—(1) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of a court of summary jurisdiction—

1. (a) that any person suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis is in an infectious state; and
2. (b) that the lodging or accommodation provided for that person is such that proper precautions to prevent the spread of infection cannot be taken, or that such precautions are not being taken; and
3. (c) that serious risk of infection is thereby caused to other persons; and
4. (d) that a suitable hospital or institution exists for the reception and accommodation of that person;

the court, upon the application of the county council or of the local authority, may, with the consent of the superintending body of the hospital or institution, make an order for the removal of that person to that hospital or institution and for his detention and maintenance therein for such period not exceeding three months as the court think fit.

(2) Before making application for an Order under this section, the county council or local authority shall give to the person to whom the application is to relate, or to some person having the care of that person, not less than three clear days' notice of the time and place at which the application will be made.

(3) Upon application being made for an order under this section the court may in any case in which they think it necessary to do so require the person to whom the application relates to be examined by such duly qualified medical practitioner as the court may direct.

(4) The cost of the removal of any person to a hospital or institution, and of his detention and maintenance therein in pursuance of an order made under this section, shall be borne by the county council or local authority upon whose application the order was made, and during any period for which a person is so detained the county council or local authority may and, if so required by the court, shall make towards the maintenance of any dependants of that person such contributions as the county council or local authority think fit, or as may be directed by the court, as the case may be.

(5) Where before the expiration of any period for which a person has been ordered to be detained under this section, the court is satisfied upon the application of the county council or local authority that the conditions which led the court to order his detention will again exist if he is not detained for a further period, the court may, subject to the like consent, order the detention of that person for a further period, not exceeding three months.

(6) Upon not less than three clear days' notice being given to the clerk of the county council or local authority upon whose application an order under this section was made, application for the rescission of the order may be made by or on behalf of the person to whom the order relates at any time after the expiration of six weeks from the date of the order, and upon the hearing of any such, application the court may, if they think fit, rescind the order.

(7) An order under this section may be addressed to such constable or officer of the county council or local authority as the court may think expedient, and any person who wilfully disobeys or obstructs the execution of such order shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds.

(8) Any expenses incurred under this section by a county council shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes, or, if the Minister of Health by order so directs, as expenses for special county purposes charged on such part of the county as may be provided by the order.

LORD EMMOTT

My Amendment to this clause is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 31, leave out ("on summary conviction").—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 62. The noble Lord said: This clause seems to me to be likely to give rise to very considerable expense, to be interfering with the existing hospitals, and also to be again in the nature of grandmotherly legislation. Apparently everybody who is in ill-health now is to be provided for by the State or the ratepayers. No private person is to be dependent upon his own exertions for anything. If he does not save money or take the trouble to put himself in a position to be able to pay if he is ill, the State or the ratepayers are to do it for him. That I strongly object to, and I should like to have some little explanation from the noble Lord of what he thinks will be the result of this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 33, leave out Clause 62.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD EMMOTT

I think this clause is a very valuable clause. It is not proposed for the purpose of spending money at all. It is proposed for the purpose of taking steps, where necessary, in order to render free from infection, as far as possible, the general body of the public in the various localities. Pulmonary tuberculosis is a highly infectious disease, and if the local authority has not power to deal with it, it is possible for it to spread very considerably. I gave some figures on the Second Reading of the Bill as to the decrease in the death rate in this country. With regard to mortality from pulmonary tuberculosis per million persons living the figures for 1901 to 1910 were 1,1061, and the provisional figures for 1924 were 821, showing a very serious reduction. The one thing in which, I believe, there is not a reduction but an increase is the horrible disease of cancer, but, in regard to all diseases like pulmonary tuberculosis much can be done by care being taken, and I do not think this clause goes one bit too far. The power of removal to, and detention in, an institution may be exercised, of course, contrary to the wishes of the patient. It is grandmotherly to that extent, but, as I say, it is not in order to deprive the patient of freedom, it is in order to save the rest of the community from infection.

But there are great safeguards. First, we limit the application of the clause to patients whose surroundings either prevent the adoption of proper precautions, or who are not taking such precautions, and in either event it must be shown that serious risk of infection arises. In the second place, there is a requirement that the receiving institution shall have consented to the reception of the patient, and that suitable accommodation exists. In the third place, there is a requirement that the cost of removal to, and maintenance in, the hospital shall be borne by the county council or local authority. I have no doubt my noble friend will not like that part of it, but, at any rate, it removes injustice from the individual. In the fourth place, the periods of detention are limited; and, in the fifth place, an application can be made on behalf of the patient to the court for the rescission of the order at any time after six weeks from the date of the order. I believe it is necessary for the general safety of the public to have a provision like this, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 63:

Extended use of ambulances, etc.

63.—(1) Any carriage provided under section one hundred and twenty-three of the Public Health Act, 1875, and any ambulance provided under section thirteen of the Isolation Hospitals Act, 1893, may be used for the conveyance of persons upon their discharge from a hospital or of sick persons not suffering from infectious disease, provided that suitable precautions are taken to prevent the communication of infectious disease to any person so conveyed.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (1), after "provided that," to insert "on each occasion a certificate is signed by a registered medical practitioner," and to leave out "are" and insert "have been." The noble Lord said: This clause allows people, when they leave hospital and have not suffered from an infectious disease, to be put into vehicles which have previously carried people suffering from an infectious disease. The clause contains the words— provided that suitable precautions are taken to prevent the communication of infectious disease to any person so conveyed. That does not seem to me quite strong enough, because it does not say who is to take suitable precautions, or who is to direct suitable precautions to be taken.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 2, after ("that") insert ("on each occasion a certificate is signed by a registered medical practitioner"), and leave out ("are") and insert ("have been").—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD EMMOTT

I do not think the noble Lord can have very seriously considered this matter, What he suggests would cause great delay, and considerable expense, and I do not think would add at all to the safety of the public and of the patients. The local authorities are responsible for seeing that proper care is taken, and to say that, in addition to that, on each occasion a certificate must be signed by a registered medical practitioner is, I think, going too far, and would cause delay, expense, and unnecessary trouble.

LORD DYNEVOR

If the noble Lord is quite certain that no infection will be spread, and can guarantee that, I do not wish to press this Amendment, but I moved it in the interests of the patients.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 63 agreed to.

Clause 64:

Extension of 38 & 39 Viet. c.. 55, s. 131.

64. The power of a local authority under Section one hundred and thirty-one of the Public Health Act, 1875 (which enables a local authority for the purpose of the provision of hospital accommodation for their district, among other things, to enter into agreements with persons having the management of any hospital), shall include a power to make reasonable subscriptions or donations to a voluntary hospital or institution, if the local authority are satisfied that by so doing they will maintain or extend or increase the efficiency of hospital accommodation for the sick inhabitants of their district.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, I move the omission of this clause in the interests of the ratepayers. The clause empowers the local authority to make reasonable subscriptions or donations to a voluntary hospital or institution if the local authorities are satisfied that by so doing they will maintain or extend the efficiency of hospital accommodation. I do not know what the word "reasonable" means. The word will probably be read in conjunction with the words "extend or increase the efficiency of hospital accommodation for the sick inhabitants of their district." That opens up a great vista of expense by the local authority. I do not think it is good for the hospitals, because people will say: "I do not want to subscribe to such and such a hospital, because the local authority can do so, and I do not intend to put my hand in my pocket when, at the same time, the local authority puts its hand into my pocket for rates for the same purpose." It is an attempt to provide national hospitals—an attempt which has been made by the Labour Party, and, I think, by the extreme section of the Liberal Party, for some little time. I think it is wrong. It is impossible to say what degree of expenditure will not be incurred by the local authority if we agree to this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 35, leave out Clause 64.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD EMMOTT

My experience is very different from that of the noble Lord. I am not at all sure that this clause will not be a saving clause, rather than a spending clause. There are many cases in which the hospitals find it extraordinarily difficult to live, and just a little bit of help from the local authority may maintain their private subscriptions, and so enable them to keep in being, whereas they might otherwise collapse, and some other provision, costing much more to the local authority, might have to be made. I know something of the workers in Lancashire. I venture to say there are no institutions so popular among the workers in Lancashire as these hospitals are. They have their own funds subscribing to the hospital, their employers subscribe to them, and they like the local authorities to subscribe to them. They are genuinely popular all round, and we are not getting into a position there in which the burden is being thrown on the local authority. I honestly believe that this clause is needed rather to save the hospitals from becoming public institutions, and that it will not cause them to become public institutions more than they are to-day.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

I hope your Lordships will consider this Amendment very seriously because, although we have had some very persuasive language from the noble Lord, it seems to me the thin end of the wedge against the voluntary system if you introduce grants from public authorities. That is a question far too big to discus, on this occasion, but I feel very strongly that once the local authority has the power to make grants—indeed, they are acquiring more power every day—you will diminish very largely the sources of voluntary contribution to the hospitals already existing. You will cause the community in general to think that they may look to the local authorities for subscriptions more and more day by day, and you will thereby weaken the voluntary system, and ultimately you will have a movement growing up to place the hospitals entirely upon the rates. For that reason I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will at all events accept the noble Lord's Amendment now even if it is reconsidered later.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)

No one would be more unwilling than I am that the hospitals should cease to bear their voluntary character and should come upon the rates. For all that, I am very strongly in favour of this clause. I do not think that a subscription by a local authority of a purely voluntary character and carrying no right of interference in the management of hospitals would in the least endanger the voluntary character of those institutions. I should like to add that, after all, the local authorities who employ large bodies of workmen owe a great debt to local hospitals in many cases. There is sickness among the workmen; there are serious accidents; and without the least delay these men are treated at the local hospitals. Where that happens I do not see why the local authority should not be empowered, where they think fit, to make a subscription to the funds of the hospital.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

I was very glad to hear what was said by the noble and learned Viscount about subscriptions by local authorities towards, it may be, the possible stabilisation of hospital finances. Just consider what the concrete examples are. I know a town in which the contribution of a penny per £ per week on wages by employers of labour as well as the employees has produced a sum which has placed the hospitals out of the reach of serious financial necessity. Could anybody say it was unjust in that case that the local authority, which is a large employer of labour, should not contribute its small quota to this desirable result? It is possible that the clause might be amended so as to limit it to contributions in respect of a municipality's own employees and with that amendment I think all possible objection to the clause should disappear.

LORD EMMOTT

I am very much obliged for the support I have received from the noble and learned Viscount and from the noble Lord, Lord Stuart of Wortley, in regard to this clause. But may I remove one misconception which I think must be in the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury? Section 131 of the Public Health Act, 1875, already empowers a local authority to enter into agreement with any persons having the management of any hospital for the reception of the sick inhabitants of their district on payment of any such annual sum as may be agreed upon. There has always been some doubt in carrying out that section as to whether the section does not contemplate that special accommodation shall be provided at the hospital in return for the subscription paid, and whether subscriptions by a local authority in response to appeals from the hospital are authorised. It is to remove that doubt that the provision was inserted in the Bill. I may say that there are many such provisions already in local Acts.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

May I say that I have no objection to the Amendment suggested by Lord Stuart of Wortley? It is, of course, too late now to insert it, but if the noble Lord would draft such an Amendment and consult me afterwards with the object of seeing that such an Amendment was moved on the Report stage, I would now withdraw my Amendment in order to move such an Amendment on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 64 agreed to.

Clause 65:

Power to provide houses for officers, etc., at a hospital.

65.—(1) Any local authority by whom a hospital is provided may provide dwelling-houses for officers or servants employed at that hospital by the local authority, and may defray any expenses in the execution of the power conferred by this section as expenses incurred by the local authority in the provision of the hospital are defrayed.

(2) In this section "local authority" includes a joint hospital board constituted under the Public Health Act, 1875, or committee constituted under the Isolation Hospitals Acts, 1893 and 1901, or any joint committee of local authorities formed for the purposes of providing a hospital.

LORD EMMOTT

The Amendment to this clause which I have placed on the Paper is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 34, leave out ("purposes") and insert ("purpose").—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 65. The noble Lord said: I really do not understand this clause. It says that any local authority by whom a hospital is provided may provide dwelling houses for officers or servants employed at that hospital by the local authority, and may defray any expenses in the execution of the power conferred by this section, and so on. I placed my Amendment on the Paper in order that an explanation might be given. I was not aware that a local authority could provide a hospital.

LORD EMMOTT

For infectious diseases mostly.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

If that is understood——

LORD EMMOTT

It is mostly for infectious diseases. Such hospitals ought to be rather remote from other dwellings and it is very important that there should be power to build cottages or houses in connection with them.

Amendment moved— Page 35, leave out Clause 65.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 66 agreed to.

Clause 67:

Notices, lectures, &c., on questions as to health or disease.

67. Any local authority or county council may arrange for the publication within their area of information on questions relating to health or disease, and for the delivery of lectures and the display of pictures in which such questions are dealt with, and may defray the whole or a portion of expenses incurred for any of the purposes of this section.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 67. The noble Lord said: This is another clause which puts expense upon the ratepayer. I really do not think it is necessary to give local authorities or county councils power to deliver lectures and display pictures, at the expense of the unfortunate ratepayer, in which information relating to health or disease is disseminated. I do not think we are in such a bad position as to require that. In all probability the lectures will be wrong and will not lead to anything. I beg to move and I hope I shall be supported.

Amendment moved— Page 36, leave out Clause 67.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD EMMOTT

This is a power to enable local authorities to do what is commonly called propaganda work in regard to health and it is really rather important. The cost will be very small. There are such questions as the tuberculosis regulations, the horrible subject of venereal disease, and so on, upon which the public are anxious to obtain information and in regard to which a good deal of good might be done to public health by allowing competent people to give interesting lectures. The Ministry of Health and its principal medical officers are very keen on this clause, and although my noble friend may say that they are great spenders, or desire to be, I can assure him that from the point of view of public health great importance is attached to this clause. The expense, where it is incurred—and I dare say it is not incurred often enough—is very small, and is quite harmless.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I certainly will not press the noble Lord to-day, but I should be glad if he would consider this clause further before the Report stage, as I have some doubt about it. People differ so much about health questions. Some people take an extreme, almost a fanatical view on subjects with which, perhaps, they are not completely acquainted, and if you allow a local authority to teach views which they have adopted you may have cases where very doubtful teaching is given, you may arouse a great deal of feeling about the matter and, indeed, may do some harm. I do not want to specify the particular doctrines which might be taught under this clause, and which, in the view of some of us, might have a harmful effect. It is, perhaps, a pity to put into the hands of people who have no special knowledge of medical subjects the authority and power to give teaching and disseminate pamphlets. In regard to the pamphlets, I suppose many would not be read, and the lectures, perhaps, would not be listened to; but there is always a risk that wrong lectures may be given and wrong pamphlets distributed. I cannot help thinking that the agencies already existing for the spreading of medical knowledge are sufficient and should be trusted, and that there is considerable doubt whether it is wise to give this power. I am only asking the noble Lord to think the matter over before the Report stage.

EARL RUSSELL

The noble Lord who moved this Amendment has appealed to us again and again this afternoon on the ground of economy. I should be very glad if the noble Lord would really study this question somewhat further purely on the ground of economy. Is it not cheaper to give lectures upon ordinary questions of sanitation, upon such important ques- tions as what should be done with refuse, as to what should be done with open cesspools, as to how to keep milk uncontaminated and how to prevent meat from being tainted and things of that sort—is it not cheaper to give lectures on the simple principles of health and bring them to the knowledge of people rather than have the cost of diphtheria outbreaks? Is it not cheaper to give them lectures upon the importance of open air and open windows than to have tuberculosis? These things pay for themselves. It seems to me that these lectures would probably be on the simplest details of health management which it is important that the people should know, particularly lectures having a bearing upon those diseases which are so prevalent.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

How many people attend these lectures?

LORD EMMOTT

I do not think they will hold the lectures unless a good number attend. I think that the lectures will be well attended. If not, they will soon be dropped because local authorities, though they may be silly hero and there, are not fools taking them on the whole. They do not go on with a series of lectures unless those lectures are well attended and people really care about them. The noble and learned Viscount has appealed to me to consider further this question on the ground that it is very easy to have taught, shall I say, cranky doctrines which would do as much harm as good and cause great trouble. I do think that is a very important side of the question, but I can reassure him to this extent that it is the Society of Medical Officers of Health, a very fine body of men in the country of great experience, who have submitted that a central body should be set up to advise the local authorities. I think this matter is one more as to the mature of the medical doctrine that is preached, and I should be very glad to see that this matter is considered before Report.

LORD ARNOLD

Before the Amendment is withdrawn. I should like to say a word it, regard to the attitude of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Banbury of Southam). He submitted this Amendment solely on the ground of expense and I do put forward the view that so frequently in discussing matters of this kind, or, indeed almost any matter, in regard to finance he merely looks on the debit side. My noble friend put this point. I can very well believe, and if there were time I think I could prove, that expenditure of this kind would pay for itself many times over. If the noble and learned Viscount opposite imagines that very disputable doctrines are going to be taught, I think that is extremely unlikely to happen. I know from my own experience in the question of the prevention of child blindness that the dissemination of a little information by means of pamphlets has been the means of preventing child blindness. Surely that is good work. That is simply one example. I hope the clause will be allowed to remain as it is and the matter left to the discretion and good sense of the local authorities.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 67 agreed to.

Clause 68:

Power to provide parking places for vehicles.

68.—(1) Where for the purpose of relieving or preventing congestion of traffic it appears to the local authority to be necessary to provide within their district, suitable parking places for vehicles, the local authority may provide such parking places in accordance with the provisions of this section, and for that purpose may—

1. (a) acquire land suitable for use as a parking place; or
2. (b) utilise any lands which may lawfully be appropriated for the purpose; or
3. (c) by order authorise the use as a parking place of any part of a street within their district;

Provided that no such order shall—

1. (i) authorise the use of any part of a street so as unreasonably to prevent access to any premises adjoining the street, or the use of the street by any person entitled to the use thereof, or so as to be a nuisance; or
2. (ii) be made in respect of any part of a street without the consent of the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the street.

(6) A local authority may make regulations as to the use of parking places, and in particular as to the vehicles or class of vehicles which may be entitled to use any such parking place, as to the conditions upon which any such parking place may be used, and as to the charges to be paid to the local authority in connection with the use of any parking place not being part of a street, and a copy of any such regulations shall be exhibited on or near any parking place to which the regulations relate.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "district," to insert "not being a street within the London traffic area." The noble Marquess said: This clause is a very necessary one in view of the great difficulties that we now have in dealing with the great multiplicity of motor traffic, and I am glad the noble Lord has put it into the Bill, but, as your Lordships are aware, this subject was dealt with in the London Traffic Act of last Session so far as concerns the Metropolis. This particular clause provides that an opportunity should be given to a local authority to arrange for places in which motor vehicles could be parked and in that way to avoid great congestion in the streets. Everyone of us knows how essential it is in London now and, of course, what is true in London is also true, though perhaps to a lesser extent, of the great centres of population throughout the country. The object of my Amendment is merely to prevent the overlapping of this, Bill with the London Traffic Act which was passed recently. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, after ("district") insert ("not being a street within the London traffic area").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

EARL RUSSELL

Before the Amendment is put I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill how this will work out. This clause gives power to acquire land for parking places. Although you do that comparatively rarely in London, there may be some cases where it might be done, and if that power to acquire land is not given by the London Traffic Act it would not quite do to exempt London here.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If the noble Earl will look he will see that the limiting words of my Amendment only apply to paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) says: "By order authorise the use of a parking place of any part of a street within their district." It is only that which is exempted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD EMMOTT moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "not being part of a street" The noble Lord said: This is not a mere drafting Amendment. If carried it would make an alteration in the law, inasmuch as it would allow local councils to make a charge for parking cars on a street as well as on land taken specially for the purpose. I suggest to your Lordships that it is time something of the kind were done. The reason this is put in is that the Municipal Corporations Association dislike the idea of having attendants looking after these cars who simply rely on the tips of the people to whom the cars belong. The people who own cars can afford to pay for somebody to look after them. The municipal authorities would infinitely prefer to pay these men a proper wage and not have them depend on tips. As some of the parking places must be in a street, as well as in other places provided for the purpose not in a street, the authorities would have no power under the present law to make any charge for the attendants who look after cars parked in the street and that is the reason for this Amendment, which I hope may commend itself to your Lordships.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 26, leave out ("not being part of a street").—(Lord Emmott.)

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Hitherto it has always been considered that every person and every vehicle has a right to go on the street without payment, and the liberty of the King's subject with regard to his right on the highway is a very important thing to preserve. If I understand the proposal of the noble Lord aright, it is that a charge should be made even when the vehicle stands by the side of a street in a place appointed, if that paricular place is set aside within the street. There would not be so much objection to make a charge for a ear or other vehicle put in a parking place which was not in a street, but to make such a charge when the vehicle stands in a street seems to me a new and very dangerous departure, and I would suggest to the noble Lord that he should not press the Amendment, otherwise, on Report, we shall be obliged to oppose it. If the noble Lord thinks over the matter I think he will agree that it is not reasonable that any one should pay for standing in a street.

LORD MERRIVALE

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, will stand by the proposal he has made. There is no right of any individual to put his vehicle upon the street and use the street as a parking place. That at law is a nuisance, and is indictable. The noble Lord laughs about it, but it is a fact. You may not park your vehicles in the street. What the noble Lord has done is to permit local authorities, for common convenience, to allow a vehicle to be parked where it could not otherwise he parked, and to make a reasonable charge for the convenience. I may say that I happen to have a little experience of a. semi-public place where this parking was permitted, and to which there was a limited right of access. It was a great convenience to motorists, and I never heard of one of them who complained. They were delighted that their vehicles should be taken care of, and that they might leave them there sure that they would be unmolested.

EARL RUSSELL

The implications of the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, I think, have not perhaps been appreciated. No motorist would object to pay whatever sum was reasonable for the purpose of an attendant seeing to his car. The dangerous doctrine seems to me to be the new doctrine of letting out a part of a public highway to a private individual for money. That is a new doctrine with regard to the public highway, and I think it would be very dangerous to encourage it. It is very difficult to know where it might not land us. If you were to, impose this charge in regard to parking places in a street, why should you not impose it with regard to the hansom cab ranks in London? You are taking a public street, which is repairable by the inhabitants at large, and upon it, in spite of what the noble and learned Lord opposite says, every person has the right not only of passing and re-passing, but of reasonably lingering at his point of destination, and you are going to let out portions of the public street for money. That is a dangerous doctrine to put into an Act of Parliament, and if a method could be devised by which a charge could be imposed in some other way it would be infinitely preferable.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I see a little difficulty about the Amendment. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, has said, no one has a right to leave his motor car or vehicle standing in the street beyond a certain time. The police order the cars away, and in that case they will have to go to the parking place where they are ordered to go. Does Lord Merrivale think that a charge should be made in that case? It seems to me to present rather a difficulty and no doubt he observes the dilemma. We cannot have these motor vehicles standing in the streets for an unlimited time, and the police in London have the power to order them to go to particular places—St. James's Square, for instance.

It is a great nuisance sometimes, but it is absolutely necessary, and similar steps will have to be taken in the provinces where this procedure is to be carried out. Under the provisions of the clause the local authority are to prepare parking places and the police can order cars to go there. Then you have to make a charge; and it seems rather a difficult matter. I suggest that it is an additional argument to that which has been urged, against allowing a charge to be made for the use of the public highways. I know the Home Office have considerable difficulty in accepting this particular clause and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. I shall not resist the noble Lord, however, if he does press it.

LORD EMMOTT

I shall not press it after what has been said because I do not want to put contentious matter into this Bill. It requires further consideration, and I leave myself open to suggest something better at a later stage.

EARL RUSSELL

So far as I am entitled to speak for motorists, I think they would be willing to assist the noble Lord in suggesting some method of imposing a charge, but not this particular method of selling the right of committing an indictable offence.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, after subsection (6), to insert (7) While any vehicle is within a parking place it shall not be lawful for the driver or conductor of the vehicle, or for any person employed in connection therewith, to ply for hire or to accept passengers for hire, and if any person acts in contravention of this provision he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding forty shillings.

The noble Marquess said: This is a very small matter, but it is thought there ought to be a provision made that if parking places are provided they should not be used by the ordinary cabs and vehicles which ply for hire in the streets. Therefore they are excluded.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 28, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The next Amendment is consequential

Amendment moved— Line 32, leave out from ("the") to ("expression") in line 36.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 69 agreed to.

Clause 70:

Use of public offices for entertainments, etc.

70.—(1) Any offices provided by the local authority for the transaction of business may be used by the local authority for the purposes of entertainments, and may be let by them for use for those purposes, or for the purpose of meetings, at such times and in such manner as will not interfere in any way with the transaction of the business of the local authority.

(2) Any expenses incurred by the local authority in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section shall be defrayed out of the fund or rate out of which the expenses of the local authority in the maintenance of the offices are defrayed, and any receipts shall he carried to the credit of that fund or rate.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the expression "entertainments" includes bands, concerts, performances, lectures, shows, exhibitions, competitions and other amusements.

LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "entertainments and" and insert "concerts or other entertainments which may be provided either by the local authority or by any other person and any such officers as aforesaid." The noble Lord said: This is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 25, leave out ("entertainments and") and insert the said words.—(Lord Jessel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD JESSEL

The Amendment to add the proviso to subsection (1) is also consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 39, line 29, at end insert: ("Provided that the restrictions imposed by Part VI of this Act with respect to the character of any concert or other entertainment provided by the local authority under the powers conferred by that Part shah apply with respect to ally concert or other entertainment provided by the local authority under this section.")—(Lord Jessel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD JESSEL.

My Amendment to leave out subsection (3) is also consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 39, lines 36 to 39, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Jessel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 71:

Power to establish cold-air stores, etc.

71. Where a local authority have provided a public slaughter-house or market, they may provide a cold-air store or refrigerator, with all machinery, apparatus and appliances necessary for the proper working and use thereof, and for the storage and preservation of meat and other articles of food, and may make in respect of the use of any such cold-air store or refrigerator, such reasonable charges as they may determine.

LORD ASKWITH moved, after the first "may," to insert "with the consent of the Minister of Health." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved on behalf of the cold storage industry, and merely means that before a local authority may set up cold storage houses, in addition to their slaughter-house, they must apply for the consent of the Minister of Health, and must insert a notice in a local paper so that other people may know what they are doing and have an opportunity of objecting. The cold storage industry has a vast amount of cold storage, throughout the country on which large sums of money have been spent under pressure during the War, and if municipalities compete with them and set up cold storage houses in places where they already have businesses, or are arranging for businesses, it would be municipal competition of the worst kind.

Amendment moved:— Page 39, line 41, after ("may") insert ("with the consent of the Minister of Health").—(Lord Askwith.)

LORD EMMOTT

I quite accept this and also the subsequent Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ASKWITH

The next Amendment, standing in the name of Lord Jessel and myself, is consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 40, line 5, at end insert the following new subsections: ("(2) A local authority intending to apply for the consent of the Minister of Health under this section shall give notice of their intention by advertisement in some newspaper circulating in tile district one month at least before the snaking of such application. (3) The Minister shall consider any objection to the proposal of the local authority which may be made by any person appearing to him to be interested, and, in the event of any such objection being made and not withdrawn, shall cause a local inquiry to be held at which all persons interested shall be permitted to attend and make objections. (4) The local authority shall cause to be given at least fourteen days' notice of the intention to hold such local inquiry by advertisement in some newspaper circulating in the district.")—(Lord Askwith.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 72:

Precautions against contamination of food intended for sale.

72.(1) This section applies to any room, not being a room to which the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, as amended by any subsequent enactment or any regulation made under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907, applies, in which food is sold or is prepared for sale, or is stored or kept with a view to future sale.

(2) The occupier of any room to which this section applies shall not permit the room to be used for the purpose of selling, preparing, storing, or keeping any food unless the following requirements are complied with, that is to say:—

1. (a) No sanitary convenience shall be in the room, or shall communicate directly therewith, or shall be so placed that offensive odours therefrom can penetrate to the room:
2. (b) No cistern for the supply of water to the room shall be in direct communication with or discharge directly into any sanitary convenience:
3. (c) Every inlet and opening of any drabs or pipe for the conveyance of sewage or fæcal matter which is in the room shall be efficiently trapped:

(4) The occupier of any room to which this section applies and every person engaged in any such room shall take all such steps as may be reasonably necessary to prevent risk of contamination to food in the room and to secure the cleanliness of the room and of all articles, apparatus, and utensils therein.

(6) If any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this section or hinders or obstructs an officer of a local authority in the exercise of his powers or duties under this section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding twenty shillings for the first offence or not exceeding five pounds for any subsequent offence and in either case to a. daily penalty not exceeding twenty shillings.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "sold or is." The noble Marquess said: This clause is very properly designed to prevent food being kept for sale in insanitary premises—premises, for instance, that are in contact with sewage and so on—but it has been pointed out on behalf of the small retail trade that in certain cases it might act with hardship, and it has been suggested that, where the food in question is in receptacles so closed as to exclude all risk of contamination, there is really no danger and, in order to mitigate any hardship that might arise, it has been thought in the Ministry of Health that it would be wise to accept this Amendment. The same point is covered by the Amendment which immediately follows, and an analogous point by the third Amendment, which is designed to prevent there being ventilation from any drain opening into these places.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 10, leave out ("sold or is").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Page 40, line 11, after the first ("or") insert ("in which any food, other than food contained in receptacles so closed as to exclude all risk of contamination, is sold or")

Page 40, line 11, leave out from beginning of line 23 to ("shall") in line 27, and insert ("(c) No outlet for the ventilation of any drain shall be in the room, and if there is in the room any inlet or opening into any drain, that inlet or opening")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD EMMOTT

My Amendment to this clause is practically a drafting Amendment, and is designed to deal with cases of a person using the room for another purpose altogether.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 3, after ("necessary") insert ("on his part").—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD EMMOTT

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 18, leave out ("on summary conviction").—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 73 agreed to.

Clause 74:

Penalties for neglect of traffic directions and for dangerous driving, etc.

74.—(1) Where a police constable in uniform is for the time being engaged in the regulation of traffic at any place in a street within the area of a local authority, any person driving or propelling any vehicle who wilfully neglects or refuses to stop the vehicle or make it proceed or keen to a particular line of traffic when directed so to do by such police constable in the execution of his duty, shall, on summary conviction, he liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

(2) If any person rides or drives so as to endanger the life or limb of any person or to the common danger of the passengers in any thoroughfare, he may be arrested without warrant by any constable who witnesses the offence, and shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

(3) Section seventy-nine of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, is hereby repealed.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), after "regulation of traffic," to insert "in pursuance, of regulations made under Section 78 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907." The noble Lord said: I do not rise to press this Amendment, but to ask the leave of the House and of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to put a few points for consideration. This clause gives a constable power to arrest without a warrant for certain offences. That power already exists in previous Acts: in the Highways Act, 1835; in the Motor Car Act, 1902; in the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907; and in the Criminal Justice Bill of this year, as well as in this Bill. Thus under five Bills and Acts of Parliament you are able to arrest a man without a warrant for furious driving. I suggest that this is a superfluous power for that purpose. I am assured that it is put in only because it applies to horsedrawn vehicles as well as to motor cars, and. I do not object to that. I am also told that the Home Office can extend the power of arrest under existing powers, and have so extended it, by local Acts, to no fewer than 230 local authorities. It is contended, therefore, that, since this has been done, it is better that the power should become general instead of being confined to particular places. I think that the whole thing is quite unnecessary, because we can deal with this question of furious driving under all those previous powers. I am assured also that both at the Home Office and at the Ministry of Transport the whole question of motor car law and driving is going to be dealt with shortly and the position consolidated. If that is so, I have nothing more to say, except to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill if he will give me an explanation as to exactly what is intended by this clause.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 4, after ("traffic") insert in pursuance of regulations made under Section 78 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD EMMOTT

The reason why I prefer not to accept my noble friend's Amendment is that regulations under the section to which he refers have been made by only twenty authorities, and consequently have no very wide field of action. The reason why they have not been made is that it is so extraordinarily difficult to make regulations applying to different places. For instance, the regulations for Hyde Park Corner would be very different from the regulations for Bridge Street, close to the Houses of Parliament, where I believe there is power to stop the traffic in order that your Lordships and Members of the House of Commons may cross the street. There are all sorts of differences in regard to different places, and that is why this particular Amendment cannot be accepted.

I understand that my noble friend also wants an explanation of the clause as a whole. Subsection (2), which has probably attracted most attention, carries a very little further certain Acts, some of which he has mentioned, which already give a power of arrest. My noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam, when he was nearly run over the other day, had a power of arrest, and I imagine that in a case like that he might have jumped into the car and arrested the driver under a law dating from 1835. But these Acts do not give all the powers that are given here, and what is asked for in subsection (2) seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for, having regard to the amount of motor traffic that there is and the difficulty of regulating it. Of course the power of arrest will be comparatively rarely exercised and, with the Amendments that are, I understand, to be proposed by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, this clause will, I think, be satisfactory. There is another Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Montagu appearing later on the Paper to which, perhaps, I may allude, for its adoption would simply have the effect of leaving this clause as it is, except that the penalty of would be taken out and replaced by a penalty of forty shillings. That is the only alteration in the clause which his Amendment would make, and I think that, as things are to-day, the maximum penalty of £5 is not at all too much.

EARL RUSSELL

I think that, perhaps, I ought to say that, with things as they are, I personally have no fault to find with either part of this clause. The first subsection is limited to a police constable who is in uniform and who is engaged in regulation of traffic at some place in a street. As I ventured to say to your Lordships when the London Traffic Bill was under consideration, with a somewhat similar clause in it, it is imperative in the present conditions of traffic that a policeman on point duty should have complete authority to order anybody to go anywhere at a moment's notice, and that he should be obeyed. Traffic cannot be carried on without that power. Nor do I disagree with the fine of £5. That is not too much. Think of all the congestion that could be caused at Piccadilly Circus.

I have seen, of course, a good many statements in the more irresponsible motoring papers to the effect that the liberty of the subject is invaded, but it is perfectly true that, ever since the Highways Act of 1835, you could arrest a person without warrant for driving dangerously, and when we know, as we do know, that there are a certain number of young and irresponsible persons in charge of motor cars who actually go to such lengths as to have false number plates and to give false names and addresses, we cannot think that it is in the least unreasonable that a. police constable should have the power to arrest without a warrant. We know that he would not keep these people longer than was necessary in order to verify their names and addresses. Personally I have no fault to find with that particular part of this clause.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I am quite satisfied with the explanation, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "within the area of a local authority" and to insert "not being a place within the London traffic area." The noble Marquess said: The object of this Amendment is merely to prevent overlapping and to exclude the London traffic area, which was dealt with last year.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 5, leave out ("within the area of a local authority") and insert ("not being a place within the London traffic area ").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved:— Page 42, line 10, leave out ("on summary conviction ").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

As to my next Amendment. I ought, perhaps, to be quite frank with the House. The word "thoroughfare" is narrower than the word "street" as defined in this Bill. That is rather different to the other point, which was to prevent overlapping.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 14, leave out ("thoroughfare") and insert ("street, not being a street within the Metropolitan Police District").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 16, leave out ("offence and shall on summary conviction") and insert ("occurrence, and any person who so rides or drives as aforesaid shall").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The next Amendment is only drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 42, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert: ("(3) In this section the expression street' includes a county bridge").(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 75:

Byelaws as to persons waiting to enter public vehicles.

75.—(1) The local authority may make byelaws for regulating the conduct of persons waiting in streets to enter public vehicles, and the priority of entry into such vehicles, and may by such byelaws require queues or lines to be formed and kept by such persons.

(2) The local authority may erect and maintain, or permit other persons to erect and maintain, in any street such barriers and posts as appear to the local authority to be necessary for the purposes of securing compliance with any such byelaws:

Provided that the powers of the local authority under this subsection shall not be exercised in the case of a main road maintained by a county council except with the consent of such county council.

(3) The powers of subsection (2) of this section shall not be exercised so as to obstruct the access to or exit from any station or goods yard belonging to a railway company nor shall any barrier or post be erected on any bridge carrying any street over a railway or the approaches thereto.

(4) The powers of subsection (2) of this section shall not be exercised so as to hinder the reasonable use of the street by the public.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 34, leave out from the beginning of subsection (3) to ("obstruct") in line 35, and insert ("(3) Nothing in subsection (2) of this section shall be construed as empowering the local authority to hinder the reasonable use of the street by the public, or to").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT moved, in subsection (3), after "company," to insert "or to or from any premises belonging to the owners, trustees or conservators, acting under powers conferred by Parliament, of any canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour, and used for the purposes of the canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour." The noble Lord said: My Amendment is for the protection of certain persons who have statutory powers, such as canals, inland navigation, docks and harbours, and I understand it is accepted.

Amendment. moved — Page 42, line 37, after ("company") insert the said words.—(Lord Danesfort.)

LORD EMMOTT

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert "(4) This section shall not extend to any street within the London traffic area."

The noble Marquess said: This is to prevent overlapping.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 40, to leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 76 and 77 agreed to.

Clause 78:

Notice of certain works and objections thereto. Local inquiries by inspectors.

(3) In the provisions of Sections thirty-four and fifty-three of the Public Health Act, 1875, which relate to local inquiries into any such work or reservoir by an inspector of the Minister, the words "in the locality" are hereby substituted for "on the spot."

LORD EMMOTT

This is drafting only.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 18, after ("Minister") insert ("of Health").—(Lord Emmott.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 79 to 81 agreed to.

LORD ARNOLD moved, after Clause 81, to insert the following new clause:

Declaration of streets as highways repairable by inhabitants.

"Where, alter the commencement of this Act, notices have been given under Section one hundred and fifty of the Public Health Act, 1875, by the urban authority, as respects any street, and that street is sewered, levelled, paved, flagged, metalled, channelled, and made good (all such works being done to the satisfaction of the urban authority) then, on the application in writing of the greater part in rateable value of the owners of the houses or land in such street, the urban authority shall, within three months after the time of such application, by notice put up in such street, declare the same to be a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large, and thereupon such street shall become a highway repairable by the inhabitants at large."

The noble Lord said: I move this on behalf of my noble friend Earl De La Warr, who has been called away from the House. The position was explained by him at an earlier stage, and the matter is an agreed one.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 31, at end, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Arnold.)

LORD JESSEL

I am sorry to intervene, but, as far as I understand, this clause is moved in the interests of the owners of land. Not that I have any objection to that, but it does fetter the discretion of the local authority, and compels them to do something whether they wish to or not. I am sorry that Lord De La Warr is not here, for he spoke very strongly a short time ago about certain interests represented in this House, and this Amendment limits the liberty of choice of the local authority in the interest of certain landed proprietors.

LORD EMMOTT

I think it is a very fair clause.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 82 to 85 agreed to.

Clause 86:

closing and use when closed of swimming baths.

86.—(1) The local authority may during any period between the first day of October and the last day of the following April close any swimming bath provided by the authority, and may at any time while the swimming bath is closed use the swimming bath for such purposes, or allow it to be used or let it for such purposes, and upon such terms and conditions as in their absolute discretion they think proper.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "October" and insert "November." The noble Lord said: My Amendment would give people the right to use a swimming bath as such for six months in the year instead of five, as at present proposed. I think it is not an unreasonable request to make and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 31, leave out ("October") and insert ("November").—(Lord Banbury of Southern.)

EARL RUSSELL

Is the noble Lord really serious in moving this Amendment? It seems to me that it will add to public expenditure.

LORD EMMOTT

I think that there is a great deal of difference in different parts of the country, as for instance Newcastle and Plymouth, as to how long swimming baths are required to be open. I have not inquired into that point, but that difference is, I imagine, the reason why the longer period is taken, and it is absolutely in the discretion of the local authority. There is no compulsion and they may close them if they wish to do so. I should imagine that they would hardly dream of doing so if the local people wished to keep the swimming bath open.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "use the swimming bath or such purposes or allow it to be used or." The noble Lord said: As the clause stands the authority may close the bath from October to the following April, and use the bath for such purposes as are stated, or allow it to be used, or let it, for such purposes and upon such terms and conditions as in their absolute discretion they think proper. That might bring in all the theatrical purposes all over again, and therefore I propose to leave out from "closed" to "let" in line 35, so that it will read "and may at any time while the swimming bath is closed let it for such purposes and upon such terms and conditions as in their absolute discretion they think proper." Therefore they will be able to use it for their own purposes or, if they like, let it in order to make a little money for the ratepayers if they can do so. That may appeal to the noble Earl opposite.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 34, leave out from ("closed") to ("let") in line 35.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL RUSSELL

If the noble Lord appeals to me I would put this counter-question to him: Why is he depriving an owner of the use of his own property?

LORD EMMOTT

I am rather sorry that I cannot meet my noble friend, but I think when I explain the matter to him he will not feel very much alarmed about it. The real object of the clause is that the local authority may be able, by letting the baths for other purposes, to make money which may lessen the enormous deficit which occurs every year, and which aggregates nearly a million pounds over the whole country. They are very anxious to be able to lessen that deficit by closing the baths when they are not needed for swimming, and letting them, which is what my noble friend desires. The reason why I suggest that your Lordships should rot accept this Amendment is that the existing enactment dealing with this matter is Section 5 of the Baths and. Washhouses Act, 1878, which allows the local authority while a bath is closed to establish there a gymnasium or such other means of health or recreation as they shall think fit. If this Amendment were carried they could not do that any longer; they could only let the bath or otherwise do nothing. I do not think they would readily submit to a power which has existed for so many years being taken away from them. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, seeing that their desire is the same as his.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to discuss it with him before the Report stage.

LORD EMMOTT

Certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD JESSEL moved to add to subsection (1):— Provided that the restrictions imposed by Part VT of this Act with respect to the character of any concert or other entertainment provided by a local authority under the powers conferred by that Part shall apply with respect to any concert or other entertainment provided by the local authority under this section.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 37, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Jessel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, 86, as amended, agreed to.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule