HL Deb 27 March 1928 vol 70 cc642-6

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD STRATHSPEY

My Lords, in drafting this Bill a mistake was unfortunately made in including certain provisions already in the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1922. In Committee your Lordships may possibly either amend or delete certain words. It is important that this Bill should be put through as soon as possible so that the whole country may be put on equal terms with London. I have a great deal of information from various authorities with which I will not trouble your Lordships. To take one instance, the medical officer of health for Greenwich says:— I quite realise that there are some people, and generally speaking they are the worst cases, who do not realise that they are vermin infested because it is their habitual condition. With that class of person it is a very difficult matter to deal, and accordingly there is a compulsory clause in this Bill. I fail to see how else we can deal with that particular class of person because, unless you put compulsory terms upon them, they will rot cleanse themselves and they will distribute vermin wherever they go. The medical officer also says:— The great improvement of your proposals over those of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1922, Section 9, is that these proposals say 'the local authorities shall,' whereas the London County Council Act says 'the sanitary inspector may'. The great difference is between "may" and "shall."

The rest of the Bill may be considered mainly as a measure for consolidating the whole of the proposals dealing with this question, both for London and the provinces, in one Act, thus standardising the procedure. The great advantage, and the main feature of the Bill, in my opinion, is the provision regarding notification of persons knowing or believing themselves to be infected. Up to the present there has been no proposal for notification in any existing legislation of which I am aware. I have information from the sanitary inspector of Islington, with which I will not trouble your Lordships now, but he makes a number of important statements and shows how difficult it is to deal with this matter and how important the compulsory clause is. Some people say that this proposal will increase the rates. It is a question whether it will do so, but, if it does, I think it will be money well spent. In any case, we have to deal with this kind of thing and money must be spent on it. We have to legislate so long as a certain class of people, though it is only a small section, will not clean themselves from vermin, which create disease wherever they go. I will not trouble your Lord ships further, but will merely move the Second Beading of this Bill and ask you to allow it to proceed to the Committee stage.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathspey.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM, who had given Notice to move that the Bill be read 2a this day six months, said: My Lords, this is a Bill of eleven clauses, nine of which are already the law, so that it is unnecessary to repeat them, and two of which, the new ones, are bad and therefore should not pass. In the Act of 1925, which I have here, there are nine clauses dealing with verminous people and verminous houses, and those clauses are all repeated in this Bill. They give power to the local authority, on a report from the medical officer that any person or the clothing of any person is infested with vermin, if the person consents, to move him into a vermin station and, if he does not consent, then, with the approval of a petty sessional court, to wash this person and keep him in custody for so long as the court of petty session gives them power.

There is one clause in the Act of 1925 which is repeated in this Bill and which I should have supported if the noble Lord had agreed to amend it. Under that clause, which is repeated in this Bill, though a man may be so deficient in mental qualifications that he has to be forcibly washed and kept in custody, he must not be prevented from voting for a Member of Parliament. Though he is not able to wash himself, he is certainly able to vote for a Member of Parliament. If the noble Lord had moved the omission of that provision I should have supported him, but I find that it is again repeated here. All these things are the law, and therefore it is not necessary to go into them at the present time. They may be good or bad, but they are the law.

I come to the new clauses, Clauses 4 and 8. Clause 4 says:— Where any building used for human habitation is infested with vermin the occupier of the building shall as soon as he becomes aware that such building is so infested send notice thereof to the medical officer of health of the district in which the building is situate. If he does not, he is fined 40s. Why should a man of his own free will, because there happen to be two or three fleas behind the paper on the wall, go and inform against himself to the local authority, and after doing that be fined 40s.? Then every occupier, who happens to have in his house a person with vermin upon him, has got to find out whether that person has vermin upon him, and then to give notice of the fact to the local authority. If he does not do so, he is to be fined a sum not exceeding 40s. There is an excuse provided— …. a person who is only required to send such notice in the case of failure of another person shall not be liable to a penalty if he satisfies the Court that he had reasonable cause to believe that the notice had been duly given. What is reasonable cause? Supposing I think that a noble Lord is infested with vermin, and I ask him whether he has given notice to the local authority, and he says he has, and in fact he has not done so, am I to be liable to a fine of 40s., or am I not? These two new clauses convert the private individual into a police officer, and compel him to go and interfere in other people's business, and to do the business of the local authority, who already have power, through their local sanitary inspectors, to find out whether or not people have vermin upon them.

Then Clause 8, the other new clause, says the Minister of Health, if satisfied that a local authority have failed in the performance of their duty, may do such things as may be necessary for the purpose of remedying the default. That means a lot of fresh inspectors, and more expense for the unfortunate taxpayer. First you have the local authority elected by the electors; then you have the Ministry of Health, with inspectors paid for by the taxpayer, going round to see if the local authority is doing its duty. The Bill is absolutely unnecessary. There are only two new clauses in it, which had much better be left out, and I beg to move that it be read a second time this day six months.

Amendment moved— Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, this is a Bill to tighten up the existing restrictions on premises and individuals afflicted with this unpleasant and unfortunate scourge. As the noble Lord who has just spoken has pointed out, it very closely follows the sections of the Public Health Act, 1925. The first three clauses are practically identical, the only difference really being that by the substitution of the word "shall" for "may" the local authority is to be compelled to take measures in every case that comes before them, instead of being allowed to exorcise their discretion, as at present. Clause 4 of the Bill makes infestation a notifiable complaint, under penalty, and applies either to premises or to individuals. Clause 8 gives the Minister power to step in, in case of default by the local authority, and to enforce whatever order he may make. A special application of the Bill is made to London. Various criticisms have been made in this House regarding legislation by reference, but this Bill probably errs on the other side, because practically the whole of the appropriate sections of the Public Health Act, 1925, have been reproduced, and it is somewhat unfortunate that in one of the few references to other Acts, a draftsman's slip has been made by the quotation of the wrong Act of Parliament.

Of course, my right hon. friend is very much obliged to the noble Lord for drawing attention to possible defects in the law connected with this subject, which is not usually a matter of interest to your Lordships, but after full consideration of the matter my right hon. friend is not convinced that any real defects, as regards these matters, do exist. The provisions of the Public Health Act, 1925, dealing with this subject, have only been in force for a little over two years. They are adoptive provisions, and have been adopted by more than half the local authorities in the country, and there is no evidence to show that there is any lack of attention on the part of the local authorities, in regard to the removal of this scourge. The noble Lord quoted the London County Council. They have power, under the special Act which they administer, to complain to the Minister if any of the sanitary authorities within their area have failed in their duty in this respect. As regards London, the County Council never have had occasion to appeal to the Minister, and he is not aware that there is any evidence which would lead him to suppose that other local authorities fall behind the sanitary authorities of London in that respect.

The proposal to render failure of notification a penal offence is an entirely new one. Lord Banbury set forth an alarming range of possibilities, but I will not go into the question beyond saying that my right hon. friend thinks that it is going too far, at present, to make this a practically penal offence. As regards the whole Bill, he considers that in view of the short space of time during which the present enactments have been in force, and also taking into account the lack of evidence that local authorities are either failing to do their duty or are not provided with sufficient powers, there is not a sufficient case for the introduction of this Bill at the present moment.

On Question, Motion negatived: Amendment agreed to, and Bill to be read 2a this day six months accordingly.