PUBLIC HEALTH BILL. (Hansard, 30 July 1925)

HL Deb 30 July 1925 vol 62 cc587-619 587

§ Amendments reported (according to Order).

§ Clause 1:

§ Short Title, construction and commencement.

§ 1.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Public Health Act, 1925.

§ (5) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-five.

§ LORD EMMOTT moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-five" and insert "expiration of one month after the passing thereof." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first Amendment standing in my name is practically drafting. It is merely a precaution in case, through some accident, the Bill does not pass in this portion of the Session and your Lordships do not meet until October. It provides that the Bill shall come into operation a month after its passing. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, lines 3 and 4, leave out ("first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-five") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Emmott.)

§ On Question, Amendment 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 mentioned 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 II to 588 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:

§ LORD EMMOTT moved, in subsection (2), after "Parts II to V," to insert "or Part VIII." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is also a drafting Amendment. Originally there were no restrictions in Part VIII of the Bill, but as the Bill now stands Clauses 82 and 84 have effect in urban districts and are now in Part VIII of the Bill. It is necessary, therefore, to put those words in. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 3, after ("V") insert ("or Part VIII").—(Lord Emmott.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
My Lords, I desire to move in subsection (2), after "Act," where that word first occurs, to insert "except as otherwise provided in the Second Schedule of this Act." My reason for doing that is partly to obtain the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack upon a legal question. Subsection (2) of Clause 4 enacts that the Minister of Health may by order apply to any rural district, or contributory place, any provision in Parts II to V of the Bill. Then if your Lordships will turn to the Second Schedule, you will see it is headed: "Provisions in Parts II and III of this Act which cannot be adopted by a rural district council."

EARL RUSSELL
On a point of Order, is this Amendment printed on the Paper?

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
No.

EARL RUSSELL
That being so, can it properly be taken at this stage? I submit it is out of order.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
I handed it in to the Lord Chancellor and he has agreed. If it is out of order, that is another matter. I only know the procedure in another place, where it would be in order.

589

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)
The proper course for my noble friend to pursue is to put the Amendment down for the next stage. I really do not think it is needed and I hope I may be able to persuade the noble Lord of that.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
I understand that I am to put it down for the Third Reading of the Bill?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Unless I can persuade the noble Lord otherwise.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
Then I will do that.

§ Clause 13 [Street bins]:

§ LORD EMMOTT
The Amendment to this clause is drafting, and I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 27, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(Lord Emmott.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 14:

§ Public drinking fountains, seats, &c. 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 EMMOTT moved, after "authority," to insert "and any person with their consent and subject to such conditions as they may impose." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to meet a useful suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort. It has the object of giving encouragement to people to give drinking fountains and to allow the local authority to accept them. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 31, after ("authority") insert the said words.—(Lord Emmott.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 17:

§ Notice to urban authority before street is named.

§ (3) It shall not be lawful to set up in any street an inscription of the name thereof—

(a) until the expiration of one month after notice of the proposed name has been sent to the urban authority under this section; and
(b) where the urban authority have objected to the proposed name, unless and until such objection has been overruled on appeal;

and any person acting in contravention of this provision shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds and to a daily penalty not exceeding twenty shillings.

§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved, in subsection (3) (b), after "been", to insert "withdrawn by the urban authority or". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I need not assure my noble friend that if he objects to any of the three or four Amendments I am moving to the Bill I will not press them. I think they are improvements. The Amendment to Clause 17, for instance, deals with the proposed system under which a street can be named. The noble Lord and I have discussed this matter. I do not know whether your Lordships would desire that I should explain it in detail. If there is no objection to it, and as I understand my noble friend agrees, I will formally move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 6, line 33, after ("been") insert ("withdrawn by the urban authority or").—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 19:

§ Indication of name of street.

§ (2) If any person destroys, pulls down or defaces any inscription of the name of a street which has lawfully been set up, or sets up in any street any name different from the name lawfully given to the street, or places or affixes any notice or advertisement within twelve inches of any name of a street marked on a house, building, or erection in pursuance of this section, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds and to a daily penalty not exceeding twenty shillings.

§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or defaces" and insert "defaces or permits to be obscured." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has reference to the same point. It deals with the desirability of securing that when a street is named, the name shall be legible. It does not go further than that. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved Page 7, line 29, leave out ("or defaces") and insert ("defaces or permits to be obscured").—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

591

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I do not object to the end which my noble friend has in view, but I question a little whether the words "be obscured" do not got a great deal too far. I imagine that what he is desirous of stopping is the case of a householder allowing a street name to be defaced, say, by a growing creeper or something of that kind. I am afraid in the towns in which we live, not only in London but elsewhere, the name of a street is very often obscured by smoke. Does my noble friend intend to make a house-holder responsible for that? It seems to me to be a little doubtful, and unless my noble friend is quite sure I should have thought the words "be obscured" went much too far.

§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD
It is "permits to be obscured."

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
Yes; so that if the householder allows smoke to come against his wall he will permit the name to be obscured. I should have thought it was rather doubtful. Your Lordships will remember that this Bill is rather drastic in certain respects and it is better that we should not increase its character in that particular unless we are sure.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
My Lords, if there is the smallest objection to this Amendment in any part of the House I will not press it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD CLINTON moved, after Clause 23, to insert the following new clause:—

§ Application of certain sections to main roads.

§ ". The powers conferred on the urban authority or the local authority by the following sections of this Act (that is to say):—

§ 22. (For preventing soil, etc., from being washed into streets);

§ 23. (Lopping of trees overhanging highways);

§ may as from the date when the same come into operation in any district be exercised by the county council instead of by the urban authority or the local authority (as the case may be) as respects any main road maintained by the county council, and in relation to any such main road the powers of the said sections shall have effect with the substitution of the county council for the urban authority or the local authority (as the case may be).''

592

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is to provide that the authority which exercises certain powers under Clauses 22 and 23 of this Bill shall be the same authority as has the control and the management of those roads to which these particular powers apply. Clause 22 of the Bill is for the purpose of preventing soil, etc., being washed into the streets. This applies mainly, I think, to urban districts, but there are inside those urban districts a good many cases where the urban district council has not retained the management of the roads under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1888, and the county council itself manages and repairs those roads. I think in those cases it would be right that the county council, which manages the roads, should have the power of preventing the soil being washed upon them. As regards Clause 23, dealing with the lopping of trees overhanging highways, the same argument applies—namely, that the county council, being generally the authority for the maintenance of the main roads, should have the power of lopping the trees on the roadside. Your Lordships will, no doubt, be aware that there is nothing in this proposal to increase any of the powers under the Bill. It is just a question as to which is the proper authority for carrying them out, and I suggest to your Lordships that the proper authority is the council which has control over the roads.

§ The principle has been admitted in this Bill under a later clause for, of course, the true purpose under Clause 33 is stated in the marginal note: "Power to prescribe improvement line for widening streets." Under that clause the power is given to the local authority, but in the following clause there is a provision that the powers conferred upon the local authority by the preceding clause may be exercised by the county council as respects any main road maintained by the county council. That is really an exactly similar clause to the one which I desire to insert. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 9, line 34, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Clinton.)

§ LORD EMMOTT
My Lords, I do not know what advice His Majesty's Government may give to the House as regards this matter, but so far as those whom I represent here are concerned there would 593 be a very serious difficulty in agreeing to part of this Amendment, the part connected with Clause 22. When the Bill was in Committee in another place the promoters and the Ministry of Health agreed with the Central Landowners' Association that this clause should be included both in the First and Second Schedules to the Bill, with the result that it would not be adopted by an urban authority for a district of less than 20,000 population unless the consent of the Ministry of Health was obtained and that it could not be adopted by the rural district, and therefore must, be put in force in a rural district by an Order of the Minister.
The proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 2 enacts that where powers are conferred on a county council by any clause in Part II those powers may be exercised by the council without an adoption by them of the provisions of that clause. The noble Lord's Amendment would, therefore, put in force in the whole of England and Wales without adoption the provisions of Clause. 22 in so far as the clause applies to a main road maintained by a county council. This would be a breach of the arrangements made with the Central Landowners' Association, and I venture to suggest in those circumstances that it would not be wise on our part to accept that part of the Amendment at this stage. The objection of the Landowners' Association to the general operation of Clause 22 was that it would prove onerous to owners in rural areas and it was for this reason that the necessity for consent by the Minister was interposed if the necessity for adoption were removed.
As regards main roads the clause would automatically apply to the most important of the highways in urban and rural districts. With respect to the other part of the Amendment, so far as I am concerned and those whom I represent, we have no objection at all, but to accept that without the other would mean redrafting, and if your Lordships should, as I hope, take my view of the matter, I can suggest an Amendment that I think would meet the case instead of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has 594 asked what the opinion of the Government is upon this clause. I may say, for my own part, that in substance I agree with the argument which was put before us by my noble friend behind me (Lord Clinton)—that is to say, I see no reason in the world why county council roads should not be protected just as any other road is protected, and the county council authority in respect of those roads protected. But what the noble Lord opposite has suggested is perfectly true, that that cannot be done merely by an Amendment to this clause. It would want a very extensive amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill, and the question therefore arises whether my noble friend behind me thinks the matter of sufficient importance to press it any further. I could imagine that, though it is reasonable on the face of it, it is not a matter of very great importance so far as the rural districts of this country are concerned. If he thought it of importance, of course he would have to reserve himself, if I may venture to say so, for the Third Reading of the Bill, in order to insert the necessary Amendment in the second clause leading up to this Amendment here. I should hardly think that it is worth his while at the present time so far as the present stage is concerned.
There is no objection whatever on behalf of the Government, any more than on the part of the noble Lord opposite, to the second part of my noble friend's Amendment. As regards the lopping of trees, we are quite content to accept the noble Lord's Amendment as it stands. I think my noble friend opposite is right that a very small change in the drafting of this Amendment, as it stands, could be made to the Clause 22 part of it, and that would leave only the Clause 23 part of it. I should rather suggest that, at any rate at the present stage, my noble friend behind me should adopt the course suggested by the noble Lord opposite and between now and Third Reading he could consider whether it was necessary to draft the substantive Amendment to Clause 2 which would be necessary as enabling him to deal with Clause 22.

§ LORD CLINTON
My Lords, I admit that I am somewhat seriously alarmed at the awful power that, according to the noble Lord opposite, I have let loose upon the whole of the Kingdom by proposing a very innocent Amendment, and I 595 am rather hastily going to run away from it. But with regard to the second part—that is the Amendment applying my new clause to Clause 23—I understand that nobody has raised any serious objection to it and that no awful results are likely to occur if the clause remains in the Bill. If that is the case I am willing to adopt my drafting or any other that carries out the same object that the noble Marquess would like to suggest.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
Perhaps the noble Lord opposite would suggest. a form for the Amendment?

§ LORD EMMOTT
If the noble Lord would look at the Bill at Clause 23, page 9, line 30, he will see that he might add as a new subsection the following:— (2) The powers conferred on the local authority by this section shall, as respects any main road maintained by a county council, be exercised by the county council instead of by the local authority, and any expenses incurred by a county council under this section shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes. There would have to be an additional Amendment in page 9, line 32, after "authority," to insert "or county council." I will give the noble Lord a copy of that.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I suggest that my noble friend had better move it on Third Reading as it is rather an extensive change. Your Lordships have an objection to passing words which you imperfectly understand, but, of course, if the House has no objection to accepting the Amendment now there is no reason why it should not be inserted.

§ LORD EMMOTT
I think it would be more convenient to insert it now.

§ LORD CLINTON
I raise no objection to that. Would it not be more convenient if I withdraw my Amendment altogether and then Lord Emmott can move his Amendments instead?

§ On Question, Amendment withdrawn.

§ LORD EMMOTT
I beg to move the Amendments which I have already read to the House.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Clause 23, page 9, line 30, at end insert the following new subsection:—

§ ("(2) The powers conferred on the local authority by this section shall as respects any main road maintained by a county 596 council be exercised by the county council instead of by the local authority, and any expenses incurred by a county council under this section shall be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes.")

§ clause 23, page 9, line 32, after ("authority'') insert ("or county council").—(Lord Emmott.)

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Russell, if this is in order.

EARL RUSSELL
I do not know that I am the champion of order in this House, but this is merely an Amendment to an Amendment which is on the Paper.

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, might I intervene for a moment It is rather important that your Lordships should arrive at a conclusion as to what may be done on Report stage. I think I am only stating what is right when I say that there is no objection, so far as rules of order are concerned, to moving Amendments on Report stage without Notice. That is perfectly in order, though it is not always a convenient course, for obvious reasons. It differs altogether from the rule as regards Third Reading. In respect of Third Readings it is distinctly contrary to the practice of the House to move Amendments of which Notice has not been given, and I hope your Lordships will be careful to maintain that rule. I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, in his place, and I hope he will confirm what I say. I have seen the greatest inconvenience arise from any relaxation of this rule in regard to Third Reading. It is often convenient on Report stage to move Amendments without Notice, and I think I am right in saying that it is not out of order in the least; but I think it is a course that should be adopted very sparingly and only as far as it suits the convenience of the House.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
My Lords, I think the noble Marquess is perfectly correct in stating what is the rule of order in regard to this matter, and I join with him in deprecating the moving of Amendments which are not on the Paper. There are occasions, such as he referred to, of an Amendment being moved to an Amendment already on the Paper, such as we have just had; and that stands in a different category. An 597 Amendment to an Amendment on the Paper is generally easy enough for your Lordships to follow, but it is out of order to move Amendments on Third Reading without Notice, and much wiser in my view that they should not be moved without Notice on Third Reading or on Report stage. Every Amendment should always be on the Paper. In this House we can, happily, move Amendments as late as Third Reading, if they are printed.

§ Clause 27:

§ Power to grant licences for bridges over streets.

§ 27.—(1) The local authority may grant to the owner or occupier of any premises abutting upon any street a licence to construct and use a way by means of a bridge over that street for such period and on such terms and conditions as to the local authority may seem fit:

§ Provided that— (d) Section seven of the Telegraph Act, 1878, shall apply to any works authorised or required by a licence under this section as if such works were authorised by a special Act of Parliament, and for the purposes of the placing or maintenance of overground telegraphic lines under the powers conferred by the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1924, any such bridge shall be deemed part of the street or road which it crosses.

§ LORD EMMOTT
My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is purely drafting. It is the form preferred by the General Post Office. But it should read "the Telegraphic Acts, 1863 to 1924," and I will move it in that amended form.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 11, line 32, leave out proviso ("(d)") and insert: ("(d) For the purposes of Section seven of the Telegraph Act, 1878, any work authorised or required by a licence under this section shall be deemed to be work done in the execution of an undertaking authorised by an Act of Parliament, and for the purposes of the placing or maintenance of overground telegraph lines under the powers conferred by the Telegraphic Acts, 1863 to 1924, a bridge constructed or used in accordance with a licence under this section shall be deemed to be part of any sreet or road which it crosses.")—(Lord Emmott.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

598

§ Clause 33:

§ Power to prescribe improvement line for widening streets.

§ 33.— (1) Where in the opinion of the local authority—

(a) any street repairable by the inhabitants at large is narrow or inconvenient, or without any sufficiently regular boundary line; or
(b) it is necessary or desirable that such street shall be widened;

the local authority may prescribe in relation to either side of the street, or at or within a distance of fifteen yards from any street corner, the line to which the street shall be widened (in this section called "the improvement line").

§ (4) The local authority shall consider any objection made to a proposed improvement line, and not less than six weeks after the date on which notice of the deposit of the improvement plan was given to owners and occupiers, the authority may by resolution prescribe an improvement line, and any line so prescribed shall operate as the improvement line for the purposes of this section.

§ (9) Until any laud purchased under the preceding subsection is added to the street, the occupier of the land from which it is severed, and other persons with his permission, shall be entitled to reasonable access across the land so purchased to and from the street, and shall have the same rights in regard to the laying, altering, maintaining, repairing and renewing of drains, mains, pipes or electric lines in such land as if the same were part of the street.

§ (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.

§ LORD EMMOTT
My Lords, the first Amendment in my name to this clause is purely drafting and is designed to bring it into the form preferred by His Majesty's Government. It is to make sure that a plan may be modified and approved in its final form when due consideration has been given to it.

§ Amendment moved— Page 16, lines 25 and 26, leave out ("any line so prescribed shall operate as") and insert ("the line so prescribed shall be shown on a plan duly sealed and authenticated and shall be").—(Lord Emmott.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD EMMOTT
My Lords, with your permission I will explain the next three 599 Amendments to this clause together. They arise out of a suggestion made during the Committee stage, and make sure that the land which is dealt with under this clause shall be added to the street and not used for any other purpose. We also had a discussion on subsection (11), and at that time, with the advice I had, I objected to its being taken out of the Bill. Further consideration has led to the view that this subsection is not needed; and there is also a positive reason for leaving it out. There is no such provision in the Town Planning Act and I understand it would raise legal difficulties if it appeared in this Bill and not in the Town Planning Act. I think we are better without it altogether.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 17, line 30, leave out ("Until")

§ Page 17, line 31, leave out ("is added to the street") and insert ("shall be added to the street, and until the land is so added").

§ Page 18, lines 1 to 6, leave out subsection (11).—(Lord Emmott.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 39:

§ Notice of intention to repair drains.

§ 39.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any person, except in case of emergency, to 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.

§ (2) Where any such works are executed without notice in a case of emergency, it shall not be lawful for any person to cover over the drain without giving to the local authority at least twenty-four hours previous notice in writing of his intention so to do.

§ (3) Free access to the drain or the work of repair, reconstruction or alteration, shall be afforded to the surveyor, or sanitary inspector, or any officer of the local authority authorised in writing, by the local authority for the purpose of inspection.

§ LORD EMMOTT moved in subsection (1) after "to" ["to reconstruct"] to insert "repair." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now come to questions which were discussed at some length in the Committee stage and in regard to which I am making an endeavour to meet the wishes of noble Lords. So far as I understood the discussion, the main 600 objection seemed to apply to the repair of a drain on private land communicating with a cesspool also on private land. All that I am asking by the Amendments I have put down is that a man who has his own drain communicating with his own cesspool need not give any notice to the local authority when he repairs it, but that where his drain communicates with the sewer, and. may be a danger to public health if it goes wrong, he ought to give notice to the local authority.

§ I admitted the hardship of some of the cases that were put before your Lordships in Committee, but I pointed out then, and I must venture just once more to point out in putting this Amendment before your Lordships, that public health in urban districts, which, equally with rural districts, are dealt with by this clause, may be endangered if notice of repairing drains is not to be given to the local authorities. All that we propose is that the urban authority should be informed and should have an opportunity of inspecting the work in those cases. The clause does not prevent the repair being effected, but it prohibits the covering over of the work until an opportunity for inspection has been afforded. I do not know what view your Lordships may now take of this Amendment. I do not wish to take up an undue amount of time in discussing it, but, having regard to the views of those whom I represent, I think it my duty to put the matter before you again. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 21, line 13, after ("to") insert ("repair").—(Lord Emmott.)

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, this Amendment raises a rather difficult point, which was discussed at considerable length when your Lordships were in Committee. The effect of that discussion was to cut the whole element of repair out of the clause and leave merely the question of reconstructing or altering the course of the drain as matters which must be reported to the local authority. My noble friend opposite now comes forward with a sort of compromise. He suggests that we should include the question of repair again, so far as urban authorities are concerned. I understand that, if we inserted the word "urban" as he proposes to do later, the effect would be that, even if this part of the Bill were adopted in 601 rural districts, this particular provision regarding repair would not be applicable to those districts since the notice must be given to an urban authority. The noble Lord proposes also that, generally speaking, the provisions concerning the reconstruction and alteration of the course of a drain may be applied universally. Accordingly the question, as I understand it, really is whether we are to restore the provision which provides that no repair to a drain may be executed without notice to the urban authority, together with the consequential provision that a certain interval must be left before the work is covered up, so that the local authority may inspect it and see what has been done.
I quite understand the reason why my noble friend opposite wishes this clause to be restored to its original form, to the limited extent that he proposes, but I am afraid that my feeling still is that, even if your Lordships enact it in that form—I hope that this will not be considered to be high treason against Parliament—it will be a wholly ineffective provision. I do not think that anybody who has anything wrong with his drains will wait twenty-four hours in order to give notice to the local authority, whether it is a rural or an urban authority, or will leave the work uncovered in order that there may be an inspection afterwards. As a matter of fact, the moment there is the least reason to apprehend anything wrong with a drain everybody will send for the plumber and have it put right at once, leaving the urban or rural authority, as the case may be, to take any remedy which is open to them. As a matter of fact, in ninety-nine eases out of a hundred, the local authority will not pay any attention. Accordingly the clause will be largely a dead letter, and rather hesitate as to whether it is wise for us to insert in an Act of Parliament anything that will be treated as a dead letter. I do not take a very strong view on this point, but I should suggest to your Lordships that it would be wiser to leave the Bill as the Committee left it, omitting the word "repair." On the whole, I think that this would be the best solution.

§ LORD EMMOTT
My Lords, in the absence of any support to the views that I have ventured to put before your Lordships I do not think that I should be 602 justified in asking you to go to a Division, and accordingly I think I had better ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Does the noble Lord move the Amendments that follow, substituting "urban" for "local."

§ LORD EMMOTT
I do; but, in moving them, I should like to explain one point. If your Lordships will look at the Bill, you will see that in line 23 of page 21 the word "repair'' still lingers. With your Lordships' permission I should like to leave that word out. This Amendment would be consequential on that which your Lordships have already clone, and it will come in the middle of the Amendments printed upon the Paper. It is for that reason that I mention it now.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 21, line 16, leave out ("local") and insert ("urban")

§ Page 21, line 20, leave out ("local") and insert ("urban")

§ Page 21, line 23, leave out ("repair")

§ Page 21, line 25, leave out ("local") and insert ("urban")

§ Page 21, line 26, leave out ("local") and insert ("urban").—(Lord Emmott.)

§ On Question, Amendments 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 an 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 EMMOTT moved to add to the clause:

§ "Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to impose any liability on any person other than the person by whose act or default the nuisance arises or continues.

§ "(2) This section shall not extend to a part of a watercourse which is ordinarily navigated by vessels employed in the carriage of goods by water."

603

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that in the course of the Committee stage I read cut an Amendment which had been suggested to me only a few minutes before, in order partly to meet an Amendment proposed by a noble Lord opposite, with a view to distinguishing watercourses from rivers. There was some discussion about that point, and I suggested an alternative which partly met the case. But your Lordships do not like to have Amendments sprung upon yon, and so it was decided not to insert the Amendment at that time. Accordingly I have ventured to put it down for this stage, in order that your Lordships may consider it. I should like to call attention to the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, objected to the word "sufferance" in the Amendment which I then read. The phrase was: "whose act, default or sufferance," and so on. In deference to the very strong case that I think the noble and learned Lord made out against that word, as going too far, I have omitted it from this Amendment. An attempt has also been made to differentiate what is really n navigable part of a river from a water course in the subsection that is printed on the Paper. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 29, line 12, at end insert the said proviso and new subsection.—(Lord Emmott.)

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I rise only to say that I entered into an express promise with my noble friend Lord Dynevor when the Bill was in Committee that I would myself confer with the Ministry of Health upon this clause. I desire to assure your Lordships that I have not failed in my promise. I have taken great trouble to consult with the Minister of Health, and it, was in conformity with that consultation that my noble friend opposite moved this Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 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 604 or pleasure ground provided by them or under their management and control, namely, powers—

(a) to provide, or contribute towards the expenses of, any concert or other entertainment given in the park or ground;
(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
(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.

§ 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:—

(i) No stage play shall be performed; and
(ii) The concert or other entertainment shall not include any performance in the nature of a variety entertainment; and

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in proviso (ii) of subsection (1), after "entertainment," to insert "including what are now known as concert parties." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this because the provincial theatrical people are in doubt whether, if those words are not inserted, legal complications might not arise. Therefore, to make the matter quite clear, I propose to insert these words—

§ Amendment moved— Page 30, line 10, after ("entertainment") insert ("including what are now known as concert parties").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

§ LORD EMMOTT
My Lords, as a matter of form I should like to draw the attention of Lord Banbury to the fact that his Amendment hardly reads. After all, an entertainment cannot be a concert party, and I think that if the Amendment were moved it should be moved somewhat in this form: "or entertainment of the nature given by what are now known as concert parties." Though I should like to meet my noble friend I hope he will not press this Amendment. We do not seem to know what a concert party is. Some times it is such a body as the Co-optimists, 605 who do give a variety entertainment, and a variety entertainment is excluded by other words in this paragraph. Sometimes it is the Gresham Glee Singers, who give what is generally known as a concert of the kind which it is agreed that municipal authorities should be allowed to give under this clause. I am afraid that if we put in these words it will give more work and satisfaction to the lawyers than to anybody else. We do not know how they would be interpreted, and I think it would be a bad thing to put in words of which we ourselves honestly do not quite know the meaning. What is objected to by these provincial people who have raised the point is the giving of a variety entertainment. That is expressly excluded by the paragraph, and therefore I do not think the words proposed are necessary.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
Will the noble Lord put the words in on the understanding that he can reconsider them afterwards?

§ LORD EMMOTT
It is too late, I am afraid.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUT HAM
The noble Lord does not think they will do much harm, though he thinks they will not do much good. Under these circumstances, cannot I persuade him, in view of the assistance that I have given him throughout the stages of this Bill, to include the words?

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment. He says the words cannot do any harm, but ambiguous words always do harm, and that they are ambiguous really lies on the face of the Amendment, because the words are "what are now known as concert parties." That shows that my noble friend has doubt himself as to what they are, and I hope he will not press the Amendment.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
My noble friend has persuaded me.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 64:

§ Extension of 38 & 39 Vict. 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 606 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, the Amendment on the Paper stands in my name and in the name of Lord Stuart of Wortley. When I put this Amendment down I was not aware that Lord Emmott was going to put the Amendment on the Paper which follows mine. Of course I cannot speak for Lord Stuart of Wortley, but I am satisfied with Lord Emmott's Amendment and therefore I shall not move mine.

§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEY had given Notice to move, after "accommodation," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "for their employees." The noble Lord said: Perhaps I had better pro forma move this Amendment, and intimate that as it at present stands on the Paper it involves the exclusion of the remaining words of the clause, so as to limit the new power to matters contained on the face of the Amendment. Your Lordships will doubtless remember the conversations which arose in Committee, when the proposals of the clause, which were left unamended, excited some alarm among certain members of your Lordships' House, lest the contributions of local authorities to hospitals might be made upon such a lavish scale that they could justly claim, and in due course receive, such a great share in the management of the hospitals that on the one hand the magnitude of their, contributions might serve very largely to dry up private benevolence, and on the other hand might virtually convert hospitals, which have attained such magnificent results on the voluntary principle, into bureaucratic and municipal institutions.

§ When those conversations took place in Committee I was not aware of the very large powers which local authorities already enjoy under the Public Health Act of 1875, and it still remains rather difficult to see what it is exactly that this clause proposes to add to those powers. I think I have discovered what it is. It is that, 607 whereas under the Act of 1875 it is possible for them to contract for the use of a hospital, and they were given the power to build one and to contract for the use of one, and to enter [...] with those who had built hospitals, for the purpose of improving the accommodation for the sick inhabitants of their district—thus in 1875 it was the sick inhabitants, and not the sick poor, which words are the foundation of the voluntary principle—this new enactment proposed in this Bill would seem to add to those powers the power to give voluntary contributions without making any stipulation as to who is to be admitted.

§ It is probably no secret to your Lordships that that is a device which gets over difficulties which are very formidable. Certain persons connected with the conduct of hospitals very much object to anything like contractual relations being set up, which make it obligatory on the hospital to give preference, or to seem to give preference, to any applicants for their services over any other class. On the one hand, there are certain important members of hospital staffs who give their services gratuitously, and if they are now going to be placed on a contractual basis they naturally feel that they are entitled to a complete reconsideration of their position and rights, and of course it is equally difficult for hospital managers if a patient presents himself in respect of whom some kind of contractual payment has been made. It is very difficult for them to say: "We are very sorry we have not got room."

§ That has has led to the creation of these local schemes under which the employers and employees contribute in proportion to wages from year to year sums which have been found in some cases—due to local patriotism and the readiness to give where good service is rendered—to amount to such a figure as really almost to solve the question of hospital finance. In those cases the arrangement is a tacit arrangement—that where there is room in the hospital and the employee in respect of whom a payment has been made becomes an applicant for hospital accommodation, he is admitted and is treated free. That is really the only benefit which is received under the scheme. It is a very substantial benefit but, of course, it is very difficult to imagine any scheme 608 which secures such a benefit in any case where there is not a vacant bed in the hospital.

§ I should hope that probably this House would unwilling to confer this kind of power of granting subscriptions to the local authorities without agreements in extension of the powers conferred in 1875, on the ground which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech and which did constitute the grounds for the apprehensions manifested in certain parts of the House when this clause was being considered in Committee—namely, the apprehension lest, by an undue use of this power, the hospitals might be completely turned inside out and converted into semi-State institutions instead of manifestations of private charity and of the voluntary principle, under which such great results have been achieved. I confess that I do not know at this moment, and I wish I could tell your Lordships, how it would work out to pass the Amendment of the noble Lord, because I do not know exactly in any ordinary typical case what comparison would emerge if you measured the probable contribution of a town council, say, for the accommodation of its own employees against the actual proceeds of a penny rate. I confess I do not know which would be greater and which less. Just for the sake of starting a discussion I propose to move this Amendment.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I must put it in a slightly different form from that on the Paper.

§ Amendment moved— Page 35, line 22, leave out ("for the sick inhabitants of their district") and insert ("for their own employees").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I should like to express the hope that this Amendment will not be inserted in the Bill. I am sorry to differ on any point with Lord Stuart of Wortley, who gives so much of his time to the work of the hospitals in the London district, but I should regret it if the power sought to be given by this clause were limited in the way which he, by his Amendment, proposes. As my noble friend knows quite well, the practice of our voluntary hospitals is to make no distinction. They provide their accommodation, not for any class but for everybody who comes or is 609 sent to the hospital, and I think it is desirable that that system of giving no preference should not be impaired. If this Amendment were adopted there would be a tendency for the local authority to say: "Well, we will give you so much a year if you will give our employees preference over everybody else."
Many hospitals would be unable to make any such arrangement. I know a good deal about the system by which contributions of weekly sums are made by workmen out of their wages and by employers. It is true that by this means very large sums have been provided for voluntary hospitals. I know eases where the yearly amount in these small sums comes to £40,000 or £50,000, or even more, and all these contributions, so great in the aggregate, are made by the workers and their employers without any agreement for any preference. Of course it is true that where the workers in a particular firm have made a large contribution the hospital is most desirous to give accommodation as soon as they can possibly do so. But there is no understanding and I think it is better that there should be no understanding. If this Amendment is passed there is a risk that the local authority would be given power to insist on having some understanding for preferential treatment. I do not myself think that the proposal in the clause to enable the authorities to contribute to a hospital is in the least likely to impair the voluntary system, to which I myself attach the greatest possible importance. I am not at all afraid of the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Emmott) limiting the contribution to a penny rate because I do not think that any authority would contribute as much as a penny rate. I hope that the much more severe limit imposed by this Amendment will not be pressed.

§ LORD EMMOTT
My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has given so much better reasons than I could against accepting this Amendment that I will not attempt to repeat his argument. I do not believe that the clause in the Bill will have the tendency of diminishing voluntary subscriptions. I most sincerely hope that it will not. I think there are a good many cases in which a reasonable subscription, far less than anything that a penny rate would bring in, is almost expected from the local authority and 610 rather adds to the inducements to private people to give. It is with that belief that support the. clause as it now stands. The reason why I put down the Amendment in my name is that, I wanted to meet your Lordships as far as I could and I could not conceive any other safeguard that would be more satisfactory. I entirely agree with the Lord Chancellor that there will be very few cases in which any local authority will dream of giving anything like, a penny rate.

§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEY
I see that your Lordships prefer the fixed limit proposed by the Amendment of Lord Emmott. I may perhaps say in my own justification that if there is any fear of what might be called preferential admission, I am not at all sure that the present law offers any bar to any such agreements. The real bar to such agreements for preferential admission is that you could never get hospital managers to consent to anything of the kind.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD EMMOTT moved to insert the following new subsection: (2) The expenditure under this section of a local authority shall not 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 such expenditure is payable, or such higher rate in the pound as may be approved by the Minister of Health.

§ Amendment moved— Page 35, line 22, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Emmott).

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
I hope that. I shall not appeal to Lord Emmott in vain. Would he be kind enough to leave out the words after "payable." The noble Lord has himself said that it is very unlikely that any local authority would go so far as to impose as high a rate as a penny, yet he says at the end of his Amendment: or such higher rate in the pound as may be approved by the Minister of Health.

§ LORD EMMOTT
I am quite willing to agree to that.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
I beg, then, to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out those words.

611

§ Amendment to the Amendment moved— Leave out ("or such higher rate in the pound as may be approved by the Minister of Health").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

§ LORD ARNOLD
My Lords, I understood a moment or two ago that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, said he was prepared to accept the Amendment in the form in which it stood upon the Paper. Although I do not profess to be an authority upon these matters, I was discussing them yesterday with someone who is and one can conceive of certain exceptional circumstances where it may be very much to the advantage of the public that this permission should be given. If, however, these words are taken out that could not be done. I very much hope that the noble Lord will adhere to the Amendment as it stands upon the Paper. I agree that it is extremely unlikely that any local authority in the normal case would go so far as one penny; but there might be cases in which a hospital is being moved from the centre of a city to the country and where some exceptional expenditure is required and a special effort is being made. It seems rather unfortunate if the local authority cannot make a subscription in the same way as a private citizen can do.

§ LORD EMMOTT
My Lords, I agree that it is advisable in many cases to restrict the expenditure on matters of this kind by local authorities within limits. In reference to the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, after all the local authority could perfectly well subscribe for two or three years running or, if it wore a very large capital expenditure that the locality wished to indulge in, they would have to borrow and go to the Ministry for leave to do so. Then the amount they could spend would be the interest on the capital suns and not the capital sum itself.

§ On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

§ On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 67:

§ Notices, lectures, etc., on questions as to health or disease.

§ 67. Any local authority or county council rimy arrange for the publication within their area of information on questions relating to health or disease and for the delivery of 612 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 EMMOTT moved to insert the following new subsection:— (2) The Minister of Health may, for the purposes of this section, make rules prescribing restrictions or conditions subject to which the powers conferred by this section may be exercised.

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to meet the criticism made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in the course of the debate in Committee. The history of the clause is a little curious. It was put into the Bill by the Standing Committee on the suggestion of the Ministry of Health. It was then criticised when it came into your Lordships' House by the noble and learned Viscount. I do not in any way complain of that. I do not suggest that a great many clauses put in by another place would not be all the better for editing by the noble and learned Viscount. I think he raised a substantial point and the best way of meeting it that I could think of is that which I have adopted here. It is to ensure that the medical teaching given should not be of what I may call a specially cranky type that I have suggested it should be generally under the supervision of the Minister of Health.

§ Amendment moved— Page 36, line 37, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Emmott.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for meeting my objection and I think I shall be able to make my peace with the Minister of Health.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 68:

§ Power to provide parking places for vehicles.

§ (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.

613

§ LORD EMMOTT had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (6), to leave out" not being part of a street". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I placed this Amendment on the Paper in order that I might move it if I desired to do so. I do not propose to move. So far as I am concerned I am willing to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, if that meets with the approval of your Lordships.

§ EARL RUSSELL had on the Paper an Amendment to add to subsection (6):"Where any parking place is part of. a street, regulations may provide for charges to be paid to the local authority in respect of the services of an attendant". The noble Earl said: My Lords, when we were in Committee I promised the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that I would do what I could to assist him in the question of obtaining some charges for the parking of cars. I assured him that motorists as a whole were not averse to paying any proper charge, but that what we objected to, and I am glad to say that the House shared that view, was the idea of charging for the use of the street.

§ I put down this Amendment with a view really of assisting the noble Lord and I have got into a little trouble with some of my motoring friends because they think I have been rather too generous and have gone somewhat too far. But your Lordships will notice that my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has put down an Amendment to my Amendment. It has been pointed out that there are cases of people driving a motor cycle or a motor cycle and sidecar, a combination or whatever it is called, who want to leave it for a quarter of an hour in the street and that it may be rather hard if they have to pay 1s. or 1s. 6d., or whatever the local authority fixes, just for that period, even if it were in a recognised parking place.

I think Lord Montagu's Amendment to ray Amendment goes a little too far the other way because the charge amounts almost to a tip. It does not go very much further than that. I am very glad to say that we have agreed upon some words which, if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept them., would meet the point, and I would propose to move my Amendment in this form. I wish to insert: 614 Whore any parking place is part- of a street, regulations may provide for charges to be paid to the local authority in respect of the services of an attendant but not in respect of the use of the street. No charge shall be levied for a period of less than an hour. Perhaps that would meet the wishes of everybody and I think I understood that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would accept it. I will, however, move the Amendment in the form I have mentioned and leave it to your Lordships.

§ Amendment moved— Page 38, line 26, after ("relate") insert ("Where any parking place is part of a street, regulations may provide for charges to be paid to the local authority in respect of the services of an attendant but not in respect of the use of the street. No charge shall be levied for a period of less than an hour").—(Earl Russell.)

§ LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had given Notice to move to amend the Amendment on the Paper by inserting "such" after "street" and by leaving out "in respect of the services of an attendant" and inserting "by the driver of the vehicle for any services required by him of an attendant employed by the local authority." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I support the noble Earl. My only object was to avoid what I thought the very dangerous precedent of enabling the local authority to charge for the use of the highway. That would amount to letting out the highway for a period of time for money. The King's highway is free to all subjects and I think it would be a most dangerous precedent to allow a local authority to charge for the use of it. I recognise that where parking places are specially made and entail expenditure the local authority have the right to make a charge; but where a parking place is in the street a notice could be put up directing cars where to wait and they could then be moved away when their owners returned. If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill were not to move his Amendment the noble Earl's Amendment and my own would fall to the ground and that may possibly be the best solution. If the noble Lord prefers to move his Amendment I should not object to it provided the words read out by the noble Earl opposite were inserted as well. That would meet my point.

§ Take the case of a market town into which farmers drive in their small cars, as they habitually do. A man might 615 stop outside a shop for ten minutes in order to clinch a bargain or make a purchase, then move on and stop again two or three times. That is what normally happens. In each case if he went to the parking place a charge might be made. Your Lordships would not wish that to happen and it would be a rather dangerous power to give to local authorities. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will either withdraw his Amendment, in which case the noble Earl's Amendment and my own will fall to the ground—

§ LORD EMMOTT
I have not moved it.

§ LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU
Then there is no need for ours.

EARL RUSSELL
On the contrary, I am moving mine in response to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.

§ LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU
If the noble Lord does not move his Amendment no charge can be made for the use of a portion of the street. Am I to understand that this is the case?

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I am rather puzzled by the noble Earl's Amendment. Apparently he proposes that we should enact that if the services of an attendant are required for an hour there shall be a charge of a shilling, otherwise there will be no charge.

EARL RUSSELL
Not a shilling charge, but any charge that the regulations impose.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
How can an attendant be attending on a motor car for an hour? What is the attendant supposed to do? Is he merely to be there and see that nobody interferes with the car?

EARL RUSSELL
Yes.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I think an hour is rather a curious period of time to fix. I agree that you must fix some period of time if you work upon the lines of the noble Earl, but one would have thought that if you had the services of an attendant for fifty-five minutes and were to pay nothing, but if you had the services of that attendant for in hour and you had to pay, that would be rather a difficult matter to work in 616 practice. I should hardly think in those circumstances it would be worth while moving the Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL
My Lords, I am not entitled to speak again, but may I say that I only put down the Amendment in pursuance of a pledge that I gave to the noble Lord to do everything that I could to enable the local authority to make some charge? Personally I prefer the Amendment as it is printed. I have only moved it in this form to meet objections.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I should prefer the course which the noble Lord opposite has followed. He has withdrawn his Amendment, and I should think that we might leave the matter now.

§ LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU
My Lords, so far as I am concerned I should be glad to do that, but I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether it is a fact that no charge will be made for anything that is part of a street or highway.

§ LORD EMMOTT
My Lords, as I understand it no charge would be made for parking in a street or highway, but the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in pursuance of a pledge that he made, put down this Amendment as being the best way of meeting a difficulty that was put to him. He desired that some charge should be made because, as he said, for the most part people who own cars can afford to pay something for this service, and it would only be reasonable, if attendants were required to look after the cars, that some charge should be made. So far as I am concerned, I am quite willing to accept the Amendment as originally printed on the Paper, with the addition of the words "not in respect of the use of the street." The Amendment now moved goes on to settle a charge. I have not the exact words.

§ LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU
No charge for a period of less than one hour.

§ LORD EMMOTT
I think that is going rather far. I do not like the idea of stating a time, but if you are to put in a time I think you must put something much less than an hour. I cannot see why a person should be allowed to have an attendant for just under an hour and not pay any charge. I should put fifteen minutes, but 617 personally I do not like the words at all, and prefer that they should be left out.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I think the Amendment, as printed, does give effect to the undertaking which was given in Committee, and is a perfectly reasonable proposal. As regards the addition that has been made to-day, I do not think the words "not in respect of the use of the street" add anything one way or another, because it seems to me that it would be open to the local authority to say: "We make these charges for the use of an attendant, and not for the use of the street." It might also be open to the motor owner to say: "Well, I do not want an attendant; I have put this car in this place for so many hours, and as I do not want an attendant to look after if shall have nothing to pay." Such considerations as these indicate the difficulty. I would rather omit these words, but in any case I do not think it would be right, if you are allowing a charge to be made, that you should say that no charge shall be made for a period less than an hour. It would mean that everybody could in fifty-five minutes take their cars away and pay nothing. In those circumstances the local authority, which has incurred expense in providing a parking place and an attendant, would receive nothing from those persons who took their cars away before the hour was up towards meeting that expense. I hope the noble Earl will adhere to what he originally proposed, and consent to the Amendment being reduced to that.

§ LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU
My Lords, with great deference to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, may I ask whether it is his opinion that the omission of the words "not being part of a street" do not affect the situation? It seems to me that it is rather a dangerous thing to allow the local authority to charge for a vehicle standing in a street merely on the ground that there is an attendant.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I certainly think putting in the words "not being part of a street" has a great effect on the matter. They prevent the local authority mating any charge for that which is technically a street. I think 618 the words do make a great difference, and this is a proposal to modify the effect of the words.

§ LORD EMMOTT
If I am in order I would move to leave out the words of the Amendment which do not appear on the Paper.

§ Amendment to the Amendment moved— Leave out all the words after ("attendant").—(lord Emmott.)

EARL RUSSELL
May I say that personally I prefer the words on the Paper, but I am not sure that they satisfy my noble friend opposite?

§ LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU
I am willing to facilitate the business of the House, and to say that after the explanation given by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and the noble Earl opposite, I think we can fall in with Lord Emmott's suggestion. At the same time I confess that I should rather like to have seen a time limit put into Lord Emmott's Amendment, in which case we need not have moved our Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 73:

§ Rag and bone dealers not to sell food.

§ 73.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any collector of or dealer in rags or bones or similar articles, or any person carrying of the business of a rag and bone merchant, or any person acting on behalf of any such person, to sell or distribute within the district of the local authority any article of food from any cart, barrow or other vehicle used for the collection of rags, bones or similar articles, or in or from any shop or premises used for, or in connection with, the business of a rag and bone merchant.

§ (2) Every person who shall offend against this section shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds.

§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHM0RE had Amendments on the Paper to move, in subsection (1) to leave out "any article of food," and at the end of subsection (1) to insert "any article of food or clothing or any balloon or other toy." The noble Earl said: The Amendments standing in my name, I understand, do not meet with disfavour if I omit two words from the second one. I will move the first one as 619 it appears on the Paper, and then I will move the second one with the omission of the words "or clothing." I do not press for those words as they have been criticised, and subject to that I will not detain your Lordships by explaining the point at length, though I am quite ready to do so if challenged. I beg to move the first Amendment on the Paper in my name.

§ Amendment moved— Page 42, line 18, leave out ("any article of food").—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 42, line 22, at end insert ("any article of food or any balloon or other toy").—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ First Schedule:

§ LORD EMMOTT
The Amendments which appear on the Paper in my name to this Schedule and also to the Second Schedule are drafting.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 49, line 9, leave out ("20") and insert ("21")

§ Page 49, line 10, leave out ("21") and insert ("22")

§ Page 49, line 13, leave out ("43") and insert ("44").—(Lord Emmott.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Second Schedule:

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 49, line 20, leave out ("16 to 18") and insert ("17 to 19")

§ Page 49, line 21, leave out ("20") and insert ("21")

§ Page 49, line 22, leave out ("21") and insert ("22")

§ Page 49, line 23, leave out ("23") and insert ("24")

§ Page 49, line 24, leave out ("34") and insert ("35")

§ Page 49, line 27, leave out ("43") and insert ("44").—(Lord Emmott.)