PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY PESTS BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 2 December 1948)

HL Deb 02 December 1948 vol 159 cc731-67 731

§ 4.7 p.m.

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

§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House in Committee accordingly:

§ [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

§ Clause 2:

§ Duties of local authorities

§ 2.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to take such steps as may be necessary to prevent or remedy the infestation of land in their district by rats or mice, and in particular— (a) from time to time to carry out such inspections as may be required for detecting such infestation;

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1) to omit "to prevent or remedy the infestation of land in their district by rats or mice" and insert: to secure so far as practicable that their district is kept free from rats and mice. 732 The noble Lord said: I expect it will be in your Lordships' minds that in the discussion which we had on the Second Reading of this Bill a good deal was said about the difficulty of determining what "infestation" really was. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, made what I thought was a very valuable suggestion which I accepted as a basis upon which we might work. The noble Lord said he thought that infestation might be determined as something which brings about substantial and serious damage to food. Part I of this Bill deals with rats and mice, and this Amendment is the first of a series in which we have attempted to get rid of the word "infestation" as it applies to Part I and insert instead a more precise form of words. If your Lordships will accept this Amendment, there will be quite a number of others which are consequential. The words proposed to be inserted are to secure, so far as practicable that their district is kept free from rats and mice". and they affect, of course, the duties of local authorities in respect of their districts. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 11, leave out from ("necessary") to ("and") in line 12 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE
I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking the words which I suggested during the Second Reading debate and embodying them in this Amendment. May I ask this question, as I think it will save time? Are we to understand that, in due course, the Government will accept the Amendment which is down in my name on page 7 of the Marshalled List?

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
Yes.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
Perhaps I might be allowed to add, as it has now been indicated that the Government are going to accept the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that we think that the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has just moved, and the other Amendments to Clause 2 which follow upon it, effect a great improvement in the Bill as it was originally presented to the House. I am glad that between us—because we have been talking this over in the interval since the Second Reading—we have been able to 733 reach agreement upon this point. Here, and later on also, I believe, we have made substantial improvements to the Bill. This Amendment and the remaining Amendments to Clause 2 which Lord Lucas is about to move are all completely acceptable to those who act with me and to myself.

§ LORD ROCHESTER
May I say a word, as a member of the Port of London Authority? We should like to thank His Majesty's Government for this concession, and also the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for the proposal which he made on the Second Reading. We feel that this is certainly an improvement designed to meet our wishes so far as possible, and, as I say, we desire to thank the Government for the concession.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert ("necessary for the purpose aforesaid").—("Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This Amendment again is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 15, leave out from ("to") to end of line 15 and insert ("destroy rats and mice on").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This also is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 16, at end insert ("and otherwise to keep such land so far as practicable free from rats and mice").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 3:

§ Obligation of occupiers of land to notify local authority of infestation.

§ 3.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the occupier of any premises shall give to the local authority forthwith notice in writing if it comes to his knowledge that the premises are infested with rats or mice.

734

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the premises are infested with rats or mice" and insert: rats or mice are living on or resorting to the premises in substantial numbers. The noble Lord said: In an endeavour to get rid of the word "infestation," we have arrived at this more precise language. Perhaps I had better anticipate some noble Lord who may ask me to define the two words "substantial numbers." I cannot; but I would point out that this is in connection with an obligation upon the occupier to notify. If he fails to notify, the burden of proof that the land is infested by substantial numbers rests upon the local authority. I am afraid that after careful consideration we cannot find any more precise language than that. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 27, leave, out from ("that") to end of line 28 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
I certainly think this is an improvement on the words "that the premises are infested." Nobody knew what that meant at all. Of course, it will be a question of fact in each case whether there are substantial numbers. I am sure you cannot put down a particular definition, such as that if there were half-a-dozen rats in a warehouse it need not be reported, but that ten or twenty would be considered "substantial numbers" in regard to any premises in which they were found. The noble Lord has said that if any action is taken against an occupier for not reporting, the onus of proving that there are substantial numbers will fall upon the local authority. It will be a matter for the impartial judgment of the court to decide, if it goes to that stage. I think this is the kind of phrase an ordinary court of justices is well qualified to deal with in a reasonable manner. I have only this further point, to make the matter clear. Under the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act it was the duty of an occupier to try and destroy the rats and mice on his premises. Now the duty upon him is to notify. But I suppose we all agree that the sensible thing for any occupier to do first is to try and get rid of the rats and mice by means of a cat or a rat-trap or whatever methods are used in small houses in this country, 735 though it is also his duty to notify the local authority. I should like an assurance that it is the Government's view that the occupier should still take what steps he can to rid himself and the country of these pests.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I am happy to give that assurance. It is our intention that there should be nothing in the Bill to prevent an owner or occupier taking the common-sense action which the noble Lord has just suggested.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This Amendment is a drafting Amendment consequential up the removal of the word "infestation" from Part I of the Bill and its retention in Part II. I will deal with the retention in Part II when we reach that stage. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("(3) A person shall not be required to give notice under this section to the local authority of any matters of which notice is given to the Minister in pursuance of Part II of this Act.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth).

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

§ LORD ROCHESTER
I want to be quite clear. As I understand it, the Amendments made constitute an alteration of words without an alteration of effect. I take it from the last Amendment that as notice has to be given to the Minister under Clause 14, another notice to the local authority is not necessary.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
That is quite correct.

§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 4:

§ Power of local authority to require action.

§ 4.—(1) If it appears to the local authority, whether in consequence of a notice given in respect of the land under the last foregoing section or otherwise, that any land is infested with rats or mice, or is likely to become so infested, they may serve on the owner or occupier of the land a notice requiring him to take such steps as may be specified in the notice for the destruction of rats or mice or otherwise for remedying or preventing the infestation; and where the owner of any land 736 is not also the occupier thereof, separate notices may be served under this section on the owner and on the occupier.

§ (2) Any such notice may in particular require—

(a) the application to the land of any form of treatment specified in the notice;
(b) the carrying out on the land of any structural repairs or other works so specified,

and shall prescribe the times at which or the period within which the steps required by the notice are to be taken.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This Amendment, again, is consequential upon our effort to avoid the word "infestation" in Part I. It gives a precise definition of the conditions under which a local authority could serve a notice upon an owner or occupier of land. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 3, leave out from ("that") to ("they") in line 4 and insert ("rats or mice are living on or resorting to any land in substantial numbers, or are likely to resort thereto in substantial numbers unless steps are taken to prevent them").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE
One point seems a little obscure to me—namely, whether the local authority are now to forecast the action of these rats. Under what conditions are the words "or are likely to resort thereto in substantial numbers" operative? How can one forecast what these little animals are going to do? This seems rather loose wording for an Act of Parliament. If we accept this Amendment now, I think that the Minister might look at these words between now and Report stage. It seems rather unfair to these animals to put this obligation upon them to confine their attentions in some particular direction.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I accept the noble Lord's suggestion to look at these words later, on condition that he is as helpful in this matter as he was on the previous occasion. He found the right form of words there; perhaps he will find the right form of words here.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 4.20 p.m.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), after "take" to insert "within a reasonable period." The noble Lord said: What I seek to do here is to say 737 that a man must be given a reasonable time to clear this nuisance before being prosecuted. It would be quite unreasonable to give him only three or four, or even half a dozen, days in which to do it. I feel that it should be specified in the Bill that he should be given the right to be heard, and to put his full case before the local magistrates' courts; and, in addition, that he should be given a reasonable time. The court will then consider whether he has fulfilled his obligation, or whether he has not been given sufficient time to do so. In that way we shall still have the principle which I believe we ought to maintain throughout the whole of our laws—namely, that people cannot be prosecuted, convicted and fined (even though it is only a small amount) without there being reasonable notice of what they should have done. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 5, after ("take") insert ("within a reasonable period").—(Lord Llewellin.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down this Amendment. The force of his argument is incontestable, and therefore, I am pleased to accept the Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "may be specified in the notice" and insert "may be reasonable and practicable."

§ The noble Lord said: I am obliged to Lord Lucas for having accepted my previous Amendment, and I rise to move this Amendment, which, as a matter of fact, is on exactly similar lines, in some hope that it may also find favour with the noble Lord. Here I propose to insert words to the effect that a man should be required to take only such steps as are reasonable and practicable. I want to avoid the possibility of some provision, perhaps quite bona fide, being specified in the notice by the local pests officer that a man shall use a particular substance on his land, whereas when the matter comes before the local court the man may quite reasonably come forward and say: "I have not been able to get it." As the clause is now worded, if the use of that substance has been specified in the notice, the court will be, able to take only one view. They will take the view that they have to enforce the law, and will say: "This is what you were told to do in the notice. You have not done it, and we 738 are bound to convict you." Probably the court would fine the man only five shillings, or some nominal sum, because they may well think that the order should never have been made.

§ By my Amendment I seek to avoid putting the court into the position of having to convict when they feel they ought not to do so. As we have it in regard to time, so I would like to have it in regard to methods that only those which are reasonable and practicable should be specified or prescribed. It may be said against me that a court of summary jurisdiction are not very expert in the methods of extermination of rats and mice. Fortunately they are not great experts in many crimes that come before them. Courts are not usually composed of forgers, or of persons like that, and when they have to judge whether there has been a forgery or not an expert witness is called before them to give evidence, which they either accept or decline to accept. In the same way, if an experienced pests officer, or whatever he may be called, could come and say: "It is quite reasonable. This is the kind of stuff which the Ministry have prescribed and which all the experts say should be used to get rid of these rats and mice; and this man could obtain it," I do not believe the Ministry's action would be hampered in the slightest degree. The Amendment is on the same lines as those of the previous proposal which has been accepted, and I very much hope that my noble friend will show the same reasonableness and take the practical view by accepting this Amendment also. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 6, leave out from ("as") to ("for") and insert ("may be reasonable and practicable").—(Lord Llewellin.)

§ LORD ROCHESTER
I do not want to delay the Committee except to say that, in my judgment, this Amendment is even more important than the previous one. Time is of importance, but practicability is of crucial importance. I am very glad, therefore, to support my noble friend Lord Llewellin, and I hope that the Government will accept this proposal.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I find myself in some difficulty, first of all in resisting the blandishments of the noble Lord, and secondly, in competing with him in an argument on legal technicalities 739 on which he is an acknowledged expert. May I put this to the noble Lord? His Amendment really is presenting the recalcitrant with a defence. I feel sure the noble Lord does not want to do that. Anybody who does not want to conform to the notice can ride off on the defence that it is not reasonable and practicable, especially as the noble Lord has omitted from the Amendment the words, "may be specified in the notice." I do not think it is the noble Lord's intention that that should be so. Secondly, I feel sure he would agree that it is hardly likely that a local authority is going to impose something which is not reasonable and practicable, because the owner can ask them to carry out the work themselves—and in the vast majority of cases they would acquiesce. On reconsideration, I feel sure the noble Lord will see that by acceptance of this Amendment we should open a door which would have the effect of keeping courts of summary jurisdiction very busy indeed. We want to avoid that, and I am sure the noble Lord wants to avoid it also. For those reasons, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
I am disappointed that at first flush the noble Lord has refused to accept this Amendment. His words about presenting the recalcitrant with a defence do not hold water, if I may say so. In many of our criminal codes and our codes of misdemeanours, the man has a perfect right to put up a reasonable defence, and it does not mean that a vast number of cases are raised in the courts. The man will not desire to raise the matter in the courts: it is the local authority who, by prosecuting, raise it. All the man would be able to do, under the words of my Amendment, is to say: "After all, the steps that I was asked to take were not reasonable and practicable steps." If under this Bill the local authorities never order a man to take a step that is not "reasonable and practicable," then this defence will never be taken, because it will not succeed. All my Amendment does—and it is rather necessary to do it, I am afraid, in this year of grace—is to prevent a lot of local inspectors being absolute little dictators in their own field and in their own neighbourhood. It is as well to keep those men under some kind of supervision, and then they will never 740 run the risk of having the case reversed against them in the courts.
I will not press the noble Lord to accept the Amendment at this moment, because I may have done wrong in moving to leave out the words as may be specified." I think probably it is as well to retain the steps "specified in the notice," but I still want to ensure that only "reasonable and practicable" steps are specified in the notice. I believe that if the noble Lord and I get together between now and the Report stage we can agree to an Amendment to insert these words and at the same time leave in the words, "as may be specified." It is not easy to draft an Amendment on the spur of the moment, but if the noble Lord and I could discuss this I believe that between us we could find words which would prevent some little man imposing conditions which a court would not think at all reasonable. If the noble Lord will agree that we should have talks on this, perhaps that is how we might well leave it.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
As is usual, the noble Lord is so helpful that I willingly accept his offer, on the conditions he stated. Perhaps we can discuss this together.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 7, leave out from ("for") to end of line 7, and insert ("keeping the land so far as practicable free from rats or mice").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "land" to insert "by the owner." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that Clause 4 (2) says: Any such notice may in particular require—

(a) the application to the land of any form of treatment specified in the notice;
(b) the carrying out on the land of any structural repairs or other works so specified."

By this Amendment I seek to make it read: "Carrying out on the land by the owner." Later, and consequential upon 741 this, at the end of line 15, I shall move to insert at the end of paragraph (b): provided that nothing in this paragraph shall relieve the occupier from the carrying out of any structural repairs the carrying out of which is the subject of a contract between him self and the owner. That is to sayfr, the onus is to be put upon the owner unless, by the tenancy agreement, the work should be done by the tenants.

§ I do not want to have two conflicting sets of circumstances: one, a direction by the authority to either the owner or tenant to undertake a particular structural repair, and, secondly, an obligation in the lease by which the other party is required to do it. That is the object of these two Amendments which, of course, run together.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 14, after ("land") insert ("by the owner").—(Lord Llewellin.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I hope to be able to convince the noble Lord that this Amendment is unnecessary. It is essential that there should be an option to serve these notices upon either the owner or the occupier. The point is covered, I would suggest, by subsection (5) of Clause 4. That brings in the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, in subsections (3) to (5) of Section 290, which provide that, if an owner or occupier considers that a notice to do works should have been served on the other party, he may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. Those provisions have been inserted in this Bill for that specific purpose. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will consider that his Amendment is unnecessary since it is fully covered by the proviso I have mentioned.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
On second thoughts, I think the noble Lord is right. I would, however, suggest one thing—I do not ask him to give me an undertaking now, but I make a suggestion to the Department. It is rather important that as few of these appeals as possible should be taken under subsection (5). I suggest that in any circular which the Department send round to local authorities who are to administer this Act they should draw attention to the fact that it is important to serve the notice in the first place, on the right man—that is to 742 say, to make full inquiries from the owner or the occupier (whichever they are suing) as to which one is responsible.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I will see that that suggestion is conveyed to the appropriate quarter.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) Any notice given under the foregoing subsection shall be given to the occupier except that in cases where

(a) the land is unoccupied; or
(b) where the land or premises are occupied by more Wan one tenant and where services relating thereto and management thereof are performed by or on behalf of the owner;

the notice shall be served on the owner.

§ The noble Lord said: We come to a somewhat similar point. The purpose of the Amendment, as your Lordships see, is to secure that the notice under the foregoing subsection shall be served on the occupier except in two instances. The first is where the land is unoccupied, and here I have in mind the owner of a derelict area of land, say in the neighbourhood of docks, which has some broken-down old shed on it and which is one of the worst places for the concealing and breeding of pests. In that case the notice has obviously to be served on the owner. Secondly, it is quite right that where the land or premises are occupied by more than one tenant and where the services thereon are carried out by or on behalf of the owner, the notice should be served upon the owner. In both those cases the owner is the man who has the actual day-to-day control, either of the unoccupied land or of the premises.

§ In other cases, I believe great complications will arise unless the notice is served on the occupier. After all, it is the occupier of the small house who is the person who should get rid of the mice in that house, and it is the occupier of a warehouse who ought to get rid of the rats or mice that are in that particular warehouse. The same principle applies in the case of a farm. In a large number of cases you will not know who the owner is. Very likely ownership will go back a long way; that is to say, there 743 may be an owner of a freehold who has let the whole of the premises to a tenant, who in turn has sub-let different parts to three or four warehouse-men. Under the original lease the owner probably has the right of entry to see whether the covenants of the lease are being kept, but the obligation to exterminate rats and mice is probably not one of the covenants in the lease at all. I do not know of any lease of which that obligation forms a part. All I am trying to do by my Amendment is to say that the notice should be served on the man who is de facto in control of the premises and who is therefore in a position to comply with the notice to get rid of these pests. That is the object of this simple Amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to accept it. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 17, at end insert said new subsection.—(Lord Liewellin.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I am much impressed by the noble Lord's argument, and I should like to do something to meet him but would the noble Lord follow me for a moment? I think he has made a rather technical error in his Amendment. By his remarks, I take it that the noble Lord in his Amendment is dealing solely with treatment. If, however, he will look at his Amendment, he will see that it refers to subsection (2) paragraph (b), which deals with structural repairs. That would make it difficult. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake to have this matter looked at again. If he will give me the benefit of the same help on this Amendment that he has given me on others, I may be able to arrive at an Amendment which will cover the noble Lord's point without committing the breach which his present does. Would the noble Lord consider that?

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
I think there is much to be said for the noble Lord's point. My Amendment is framed to deal with treatment, and I moved it from that point of view. However, I now see that it does apply to the carrying out of structural works. Obviously, if structural works are to be carried out under this notice, one of the persons who should know about it is the owner of the premises. If, between now and Report 744 stage, we can consider whether we cannot get an Amendment, such as I have drafted, but applying to a notice under subsection (2) (a), and not to one issued under subsection (2) (b), then I agree completely with the noble Lord. From what he has said, I entertain some hopes that he may be able to meet me so far. With that nod of the noble Lord's head, which I hope will be recorded by Hansard, I beg leave to accept the noble Lord's suggestion that I should have a talk with him on this point. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I only undertake to try. I cannot say that I can find a suitable Amendment. I think that the point the noble Lord has made is a good one and that we should try to find a solution to it.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
That meets me completely. Trying in that sense is just what I want.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 5 agreed to.

§ 4.43 p.m.

§ Clause 6:

§ Additional powers of local authorities in relation to groups of premises.

§ (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of section twenty-four of this Act requiring notice to be given before entry upon land under that section, a local authority shall, before taking any steps under this section in relation to any premises, give to the occupier at least seven days' notice of their intention to do so, specifying the steps proposed to be taken.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, line 23, after ("that") insert ("rats or mice are found in substantial numbers on").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This again is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, line 24, leave our from ("persons") to ("and") in line 25.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

745

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved— Page 4, line 26, leave out from ("of") to ("they") in line 27 and insert ("destroying rats or mice or keeping the land so far as practicable free from rats or mice,").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ LORD ROCHESTER
I want to say only one word on this. We feel that these three Amendments are a great improvement, and we wish to thank the Government for making them, although we shall seek still further improvement in the clause at a later stage.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD ROCHESTER moved, at the end of subsection (2) to insert: and if the occupier before the expiry of the period specified in the notice, complains in writing to a court of summary jurisdiction that the steps proposed to be taken are excessive or unreasonable, the local authority shall not take any of the steps specified in the notice pending the hearing and determination of the complaint by the court. (3) A summons granted on a complaint under the last foregoing subsection shall be served on the local authority. (4) Upon any such complaint as aforesaid the court may, if it thinks fit, make an order prohibiting the local authority from taking the steps specified in the notice or such of those steps as may be specified in the order.

§ The noble Lord said: We now come to an Amendment which we feel is one of great importance. While in general agreement with the purpose of this Bill, I am greatly concerned as to its operation.

§ In common with the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association, the Port of London Authority, of which I am a member, feel very strongly that Clause 6 as it stands, even as amended by your Lordships' House by these last three Amendments, is very arbitrary. The object of my Amendment is to give a right of appeal where a local authority propose to take action over rats and mice in respect of various premises at one and the same time, although in different occupation. Owing to the location and nature of user, dock warehouses and similar waterside premises present a particular problem of a quite exceptional nature, where rats are concerned, and, I submit, require specialised treatment if harmful effects on the contents of such premises are to be avoided. Moreover, the treatment needs to be varied with 746 differing contents. It will be seen that this Amendment seeks to confer on the occupier of premises affected by a local authority's proposals a right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction by way of complaint on three grounds—namely, that the action proposed to be taken is (a) excessive—that is, out of all proportion to the reduction of the rat population which is likely to result; (b) unreasonable, owing to the presence of rats in large numbers in adjoining premises not affected by the proposal, or (c) dangerous, or at least harmful, owing to the effect of the treatment on the contents in a specific warehouse.

§ From my own experience in charge of Bills in your Lordships' House in days gone by, I try to visualise the reaction of one in charge of a Bill to any suggested Amendment. In this case, it may be contended that as Clause 6 (1) applies only to premises in the occupation of different persons, it may be necessary for the local authority to take the matter into their own hands when dealing with, say, an empty store-room in a large block of premises otherwise fully occupied; and as no steps can be taken for a period of seven days, it may be said that any further delay might accentuate the nuisance. I would like to anticipate that objection by saying that it is understood by persons experienced in rat infestation in docks and warehouses that rats generally eat and nest where there is food. They are more likely, therefore, to move away from empty premises into those occupied, especially where food is stored.

§ I concede at once that my Amendment would necessarily entail a slight further lapse of time before a summons could be heard and determined. But, speaking as one who has been a magistrate for more than forty years, I make bold to say that proceedings in courts of summary jurisdiction are swift, and as a rule summonses are heard within a few days of their being granted. The disadvantages of a few days' further delay, even at the risk of some slight additional infestation, should not outweigh the protection provided by this Amendment. Our claim is that the occupier should have an opportunity of proving to the satisfaction of an independent tribunal that the steps proposed to be taken by the local authority are excessive, unreasonable or harmful.

747

§ There is a principle involved in this Amendment upon which I seek a decision of this Committee. That principle affects not only docks and waterside warehouses, but all owners and occupiers of premises. It is this: whether or not there shall be a right of appeal to an independent, impartial tribunal from an arbitrary decision of a local authority. I would pray in aid of this Amendment even the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, as well as noble Lords on the Benches opposite, for the Minister of Health has told us that even those Benches are not altogether free from infestation by vermin—an opinion, (may I add) which I do not myself share. Your Lordships will remember that the Lord Chancellor, speaking at a dinner at the Café Royal only the other night, recounted how, in his official residence here in the Palace of Westminster, he went to his library to pick out a book which might give him inspiration for his speech at the dinner. "Believe it or not," he said, "as I picked up that book, out jumped one of the largest rats I have ever seen."

§ My Lords, I suggest that here indeed is opportunity enough for some enthusiastic rodent officer (or whatever he is to be called) to take action under this clause. Then, without this Amendment, there will be no appeal against any resulting decision. The Lord Chancellor, having been warned by the presence of one rat, will, I suggest, be in duty bound, under Clause 3. subsection (1), to take further steps to find out whether rats or mice are living on, or resorting to his bookshelves in substantial numbers. Then the obligation would be on someone to advise the local authority, because the whole of the Palace of Westminster comprises premises in the occupation of different persons. Under Clause 16 there is a right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction in respect of the carrying out of structural works or the destruction of food. Then why not also in this case? I hope the Government will see their way to make some concession here, and I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, line 39, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Rochester.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, although the noble Lord, Lord 748 Rochester, has tried to widen the scope of this Amendment, I will attempt to bring your Lordships back, if I may, to what this clause purports to do. This clause deals with a block of premises that have to be treated as a unit. For effective treatment, they can be dealt with only in that way. I propose to address this argument to the noble Lord: First of all, if he is talking about any structural work, I would remind him that Clause 6 has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

§ LORD ROCHESTER
No, I am not dealing with structural work.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
The noble Lord is concentrating his argument upon treatment?

§ LORD ROCHESTER
That is right.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
Then is it right that the occupier of one part of a composite set of premises should be able to prevent treatment for infestation by rats and mice being given to all the other parts of the building, even if the occupiers of those parts want it? What would be the sum total of the noble Lord's Amendment? If one party—again I use the term "recalcitrant party"—could hold up the treatment of an entire block, although the other parties wanted that treatment, all he would be doing would be to provide a haven—a safe home—for all the rats and mice in that particular block, and there would be re-infestation immediately afterwards. If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, it would stultify the whole of Clause 6, which deals with unit premises. The noble Lord has mentioned the right of a court of summary jurisdiction to be the arbitrator in a case such as this. I would suggest that a court of summary jurisdiction—I hope I can appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who may not have forty years' experience but has, I should think, almost as long—is not a competent authority to determine what treatment should be given to cure infestation by rats and mice. Therefore, after very careful consideration (I would like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that his Amendment was given most careful consideration) and for the reasons I have put forward, I regret I cannot accept it.

749

§ LORD ROCHESTER
My Lords, I want only to say in reply to the noble Lord that my proposal would entail so short a delay that it seems to me, considering the Government have conceded the point on Clause 16, that it is not unreasonable to ask them to concede it in this case. As I explained, the probability is that a single property which is part of a larger block is less likely to be infested than another part of the block which is occupied and used for food storage. I would ask the noble Lord to look at this point again. I feel there is a case; the warehousemen feel it too, and the Port of London Authority feel that we are entitled to some protection—some sort of appeal to an impartial tribunal. If the noble Lord could see his way to confer with the Ministry again before the Report stage, and ascertain whether any concession could be made to meet our anxiety. I should be quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
There is only one point I should like to add. The noble Lord is basing his argument, if I may say so, on two false assumptions. May I again put my argument to him? Suppose one of the occupiers of one of the units in a whole block were successful in his application, but the other eleven or twelve did not go to a court of summary jurisdiction because they wanted their premises treated as the local authority had determined, the fact that there was one man who was a recalcitrant amongst the others would mean that no treatment whatsoever could be given to the whole block, and the others would have to suffer. I suggest that that is not equitable. Is the noble Lord satisfied that the law always works so quickly in the way he says? I can only remark that my experience would tempt me to say otherwise. But it is on my first argument that I mainly base my objection to this Amendment, and I am afraid that it is no use my promising the noble Lord that I can go any further in this matter.

§ LORD ROCHESTER
I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 7 agreed to.

750

§ Clause 8:

§ Application to coastwise shipping and to aircraft.

§ 8.—(1) His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed by the Order, in relation to vessels (not being vessels employed in trading or going between a place in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man and a place not within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man) and in relation to aircraft, as they apply in relation to land.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
had given Notice of an Amendment in subsection (1), after "United Kingdom" to insert "Eire." The noble Lord said: I rise to explain that as the noble Lord is moving to delete the whole of Clause 8, and as he has met a large number of points which we made in regard to shipping interests, I do not propose to move either this or the following Amendment. If I am in order in doing so, I would like to take this opportunity of informing the noble Lord that, precocious though I may have been in my youth, I was not appointed to a court of summary jurisdiction at the age of fourteen.

§ 5.2 p.m.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHWYE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: Provided that any Order in Council made under this section applying to sea-going vessels shall provide that any powers given thereby to the Minister shall be exercised jointly by him and the Minister of Transport.

§ The noble Lord said: It will be within the recollection of the Committee that on the Second Reading of the Bill we expressed some misgivings as to the very wide powers the Minister of Agriculture was taking in the shipping world. We said that this was the first time that the Ministry of Agriculture had entered into the affairs of the Mercantile Marine. Consider what was possible with the Bill as it came to this House. Under Clause 4 a local authority can serve on an owner or occupier of land a notice requiring him to do certain things, and the notice may mean the carrying out of structural alterations. Then, under Clause 8, the powers of the Bill would apply to shipping other than coastal shipping, and we would reach a position where it would have been possible for the Minister of Agriculture to have delayed the "Queen Elizabeth" even beyond the period of delay which 751 she has just suffered. An inspector from the Ministry of Agriculture—according to the Bill as it was framed—could have gone to the ship and ordered structural alterations, should infestation have taken place on board. I know that such an idea is rather far-fetched; nevertheless, that was the power the Minister of Agriculture would have had. I appealed to the noble Lord on Second Reading to look at the position in this connection, and he has done so.

§ At the same time, I put down the Amendment which I am now moving. I am quite sure that the powers vested in the Minister of Agriculture in this connection, once the Bill becomes law, should only be exercised by him jointly with the Minister of Transport. I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee, for it may shorten discussion, if I refer to the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, after Clause 24 which appears on page 6 of the Marshalled List. It covers the same point. The noble Lord has put down an Amendment which say that the provisions as regards shipping and aircraft shall be exercised only by Order in Council. I know that, constitutionally, an Order in Council from His Majesty means His Majesty's Ministers working as a body. Therefore, it must be assumed constitutionally that the Minister of Transport is equally bound up in the issue of such an Order with the Minister of Agriculture. That is the constitutional position. I would be willing to withdraw my Amendment if the noble Lord will say, either now or when he comes to move his Amendment after Clause 24, that he can give an assurance that administratively, as between Department and Department, the Minister of Agriculture will not exercise these powers without previous consultation with the Minister of Transport. If that assurance can be given, then the purpose of my Amendment will be met and I shall be glad, to withdraw it. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 43, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye).

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I gladly give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. Order in Council procedure, as the noble Lord has rightly 752 said, lays it down that there must be consultation. That being so, I can give the noble Lord an assurance quite freely. Perhaps he will not mind my telling him that Clause 8 did not, and the new clause does not, apply to ocean-going vessels, so there would be no question of the "Queen Elizabeth" being affected in the way he suggested.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE
On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I beg to move the next Amendment. As the noble Lord rightly said just now, another clause is to be moved later. Therefore I beg formally to move that Clause 8 be omitted.

§ Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 8.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clauses 9 to 13 agreed to.

§ Clause 14:

§ Obligation of certain undertakers to give notice of occurrence of infestation.

§ (2) Subject to the provisions of this section, every person whose business consists of or includes the manufacture, sale, repair or cleaning of containers shall forthwith give notice in writing to the Minister if it comes to his knowledge that any infestation capable of causing damage to food is present in any container for the time being in his possession which is used or likely to be used for the reception of food in the course of any such business as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.

§ (4) The Minister may make regulations relaxing or excluding the requirements of this section in such cases and subject to such conditions (if any) as may be prescribed by or under the regulations.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This Amendment is consequential on the redefinition of the word "infestation." As the noble Lord said earlier, there will be an Amendment moved to define that term. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("is").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
The next Amendment, too, is consequential. I beg to move.

753

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 8, leave out from ("premises") to end of line 8, and insert ("or vehicle, or any equipment belonging to any premises or vehicle").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
The next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 19, leave out from ("infestation") to ("is") in line 20.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to delete "used or likely." The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment is that we feel that it would be unfair to expect anyone engaged in the manufacture, cleaning or repair of utensils to be cognisant of the precise purposes for which they will be used. I think the Committee will agree that it is fair to leave out these words, which certainly have some ambiguity. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 21, leave out ("used or likely").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
Subsection (3), which we now propose to omit, prohibits movement of infested goods without the consent of the Minister. It is proposed that these powers should be provided by regulations. The two following Amendments cover this point. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 24, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth).

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE
had given Notice of two Amendments, the first of which was, in subsection (4), after "may" (where that word first occurs) to insert: "subject to the provisions of the next following subsection." The noble Lord said: This Amendment ties up with a later one in my name on this clause. It deals with a point raised on Second Reading regarding the need to insert in the Bill an undertaking that the Minister shall consult with bodies of persons who appear to him to represent interests connected with the functions of the Bill. I need not repeat the argu 754 ments that were used on Second Reading on the desirability of co-operation with all interests. The Minister gave us an assurance on that occasion that it was the wish of the Ministry of Agriculture to co-operate to the full and the noble Lord has put down an Amendment which adequately covers my point. In the expectation that, when the Government put forward their Amendment, the Committee will accept it, I will not move either of these Amendments.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I fully appreciate what the noble Lord has said. When I move the next Amendment, I think he will agree it is adequate.
This Amendment has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. We were impressed by his argument on Second Reading as to the necessity for consultation, and we have tried to frame a new subsection, to follow this, which I think will adequately meet the case. The Amendment I am now proposing strikes out "make regulations" so the subsection will read: The Minister may, after consultation with such associations or bodies (if any) as appear to him to be representative of persons affected, make regulations— (a) for"— if I may read the context of the clause— relaxing or excluding the requirements of this section in such cases and subject to such conditions (if any) as may be prescribed by or under the regulations. The next Amendment finishes this, but I will content myself at the moment with moving this one. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 30, leave out ("make regulations") and insert ("after consultation with such associations or bodies (if any) as appear to him to be representative of persons affectedl, make regulations— (a) for").

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I now come to the other half, and I think your Lordships will agree that it makes consultation absolutely necessary. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 8, line 33, at end insert— ("(b) for prohibiting or restricting the delivery in the course of business of any food or other goods in respect of which notice is or is required to be given to the Minister under this section.")

755

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 14, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD O'HAGAN
Before the Motion is put, I should like to make an inquiry of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. A certain feeling of disquiet has been felt by the Road Hauliers' Association, and I wonder whether the noble Lord can give me an answer to this question. Apparently this clause requires every person who carries on the transportation of food to notify the Minister in writing if he comes to know that the food transported is infested. If he fails to do so, he is liable to a fine of £100. Can the noble Lord say whether it is seriously intended that the driver of a lorry carrying food from a factory or farm to market or shop is to write a letter, or fill up a form, and send it to the Minister if someone should tell him that there are insects in the foodstuffs he is carrying? Vast quantities of food are carried in road vehicles, either in bulk loads, or in sacks or boxes or crates. It would seem sufficient to require an owner or tradesman dealing in goods which are liable to be infested to give notice of any infestation that may be discovered. I should be glad if the noble Lord would deal with that point. If not now, perhaps he will consider it.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
As the noble Lord did not have an opportunity of giving me prior notice, it is rather difficult to deal with this matter offhand. I can say definitely that the driver could not be held responsible. It could not be construed that the driver was in physical possession of the goods. I believe the point is met further on in the Bill, but, if it is not, I will ascertain the information and give it to the noble Lord.

LORD O'HAGAN
I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
It is not a question of ownership or of physical possession. If the noble Lord will look at the beginning of Clause 14 he will see that it says "every person whose business consists of," and that would not include drivers.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his observations.

§ Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

756

§ Clause 15 [Power of Minister to give directions to certain undertakers for preventing or mitigating infestation]:

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider moving the next Amendment without the word "is"; otherwise we shall have the word "is" twice.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I am only too happy to bow to the decision of the noble Lord Chairman in this matter. The Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 34, leave out ("If the Minister") and insert ("Without prejudice to the provisions of any regulations made under the last foregoing section, the Minister may, if he").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 37, leave out ("by infestation, he may").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This Amendment is consequential. It reserves the position for the insertion of the new Clause 25. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 9, line 1, leave out from ("premises") to ("which") in line 2 and insert ("or vehicle, or any equipment belonging to any premises or vehicle").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This Amendment, too, is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 9, line 13, leave out ("vessel, aircraft").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 5.20 p.m.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
Before this clause is agreed to, I rise to make to the noble Lord one suggestion which has recently come to my notice. I apologise for not having given him previous notice of it, although I understand that discussions about it have taken place within 757 the Ministry. The suggestion I make does not alter the drafting of the clause in any way. It is that in regard to cases of alleged infestation, at any rate, in the grain trade, a good method to adopt would be to set up a panel of those concerned in the trade, so that, in conjunction with the pests officer for the neighbourhood, they may judge on a particular cargo, and it can then be determined, with the aid of their knowledge of the trade, whether it is a case for destruction, or a case for doing the best that can be done and passing the grain on as quickly as possible, so putting it into use before any more becomes infested. It is felt that if the Ministry would consult with the grain merchants to get such panels set up at all our main grain-importing ports, a considerable amount of difficulty would be overcome. There would then be fewer appeals to the court in cases where, perhaps, grain had been unnecessarily condemned, because every one would know that experts in the trade had been consulted, and that the decision whether to destroy or not to destroy, or only to destroy a part, had been made on the advice of those experts.
Let me say, further, that the grain trade have for years had this problem on their hands. The reason why infestation has increased to any extent has been as a result of the policy of the Ministry of Food (for which I, amongst others, was responsible) of storing large quantities of grain for much longer than they were held in ordinary commercial use before the war. When you have to erect large granaries, to ensure that if your stocks are sunk by submarine you still have some in reserve, then if you receive infested grain the infestation spreads in the granaries. Before the war the normal method adopted at the slightest sign of infestation was to try to get that cargo dealt with and sent away before the infestation spread. Many of these men have had considerable experience in dealing with infestation, because it does immense harm to their trade if they do not deal with it. I suggest that in all these cases there should be set up panels which local offices of the Ministry could consult. I believe their advice would be most helpful. If this plan is adopted in regard to the grain trade, I feel that the provisions of this Bill will work much more smoothly than if no such steps are taken.

758

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
Your Lordships are very fortunate to have the noble Lord speaking from his vast experience as a one-time Minister of Food, and making this excellent suggestion. I can assure him here and now that it is acceptable, and that panels such as he suggests will be set up by administrative action.

§ Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 16:

§ Appeal against directions under s. 15.

§ 16.—(1) If any person to whom directions are given under the last foregoing section requiring the carrying out of any structural works, or the destruction of any food or container, is aggrieved thereby he may—

(a) in the case of directions requiring the carrying out of any structural works, within twenty-one days from the service of the directions;
(b) in the case of directions requiring the destruction of any food or container, within seven days from the service of the directions,

appeal by way of complaint for an order to a court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessional division or place in which his place of business or principal place of business is situated.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), to delete "If any person to whom" and to insert, "Where." The noble Lord said: The next three Amendments can be dealt with together. At one time I had in mind that if you were going to make any direction in regard to the destruction of food you ought to find the owner. I realised, however, that many of these commodities pass so quickly between one hand and another—not by the physical delivery of the goods, but by the delivery of the documents of the goods—that it is difficult to know upon whom to serve a notice, and I wondered whether there was not another way of achieving our purpose. At the moment only a person upon whom a direction has been served has a right of appeal. If you do not know the owner, and so do not serve a direction, the owner may be prevented from saying that his goods ought not to be condemned, because he has not had a direction served on him. Therefore, he does not come within the ambit of Clause 16 (1), as at present drafted.

§ The phrase, "any person aggrieved," is a well-known phrase in the courts. It does not mean that it gives the right 759 to anybody to say that he is aggrieved. There are many cases on this point, but I will not quote them. The person concerned must be in a particular position with regard to the order. An ordinary member of the public cannot come along and say: "I am aggrieved, because you have condemned 10,000 tons of grain, and there is less for me to eat and less corn for my hens." The words do not admit anybody except those directly affected by the order. I have tried to get over the difficulty of requiring the authority to serve notice on all the owners, or the owner for the time being, by giving him, when the matter comes to his notice, even if a direction has not been served upon him, a similar right to that of the possessor of the goods, who, indeed, is not so much concerned as the owner whether they are destroyed or not. That is the purpose of my Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will look upon it favourably. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 9, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("directions") and insert ("Where").—(Lord Llewellin.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I need not waste your Lordships' time. I agree with the words the noble Lord proposes, and I am glad to accept all three of his Amendments.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 9, line 31, after ("container") insert ("any person who").

§ Page 9, line 32, leave out ("he").—(Lord Llewellin.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 17 [Powers of Minister in case of failure to comply with directions]:

§ LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2), after "expenses" to insert "reasonably." The noble Lord said: This is a short and simple Amendment. It means that a man will be able to charge the expenses reasonably incurred in carrying out the work. It does not mean, however, that he will be able to charge for his lunch, or anything of that nature. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 10, line 30, after ("expenses") insert ("reasonably").—(Lord Llewellin.)

760

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This Amendment is quite acceptable.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
This Amendment is in line with other Amendments which the noble Lord has accepted today, and this, too, I hope he will be able to accept. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 10, line 31, leave out from ("section") to ("may") in line 32.—(Lord Llewellin.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 18 agreed to.

§ Clause 19 [Savings from Part II]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
Provision has already been made in the Bill to obviate the dual notification, both to the Minister and to the local authority. By the deletion of the first part of this clause, food traders will be required to notify infestation by rats and mice to the Minister and not to the local authority. The Ministry's technical staff are more appropriate to deal with it. The deletion of the second part of the clause is required because infestation on vessels is to be covered by Order in Council. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 19.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 20:

§ Power of Minister to delegate to local authorities.

§ 20.—(1) The Minister may by order made after consultation with any local authority for the purposes of Part I of this Act delegate to that authority any of his functions under this Part of this Act (except subsection (4) of section fourteen of this Act), subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the order.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
We think the words "with the consent of" are better than "after consultation with." This Amendment really means that the consent of the local authorities will have to be obtained. I think that is far better because there is no wish to place duties upon authorities who may be unwilling to accept them. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 5, leave out from ("may") to ("any") in line 6 and insert ("with the consent of").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

761

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
I certainly think that these are better words than the words originally in the Bill, but I hope that on this Amendment (which goes to the root of the clause) I shall be in order in mentioning another matter so that I do not have to raise it on the question of whether the clause stand part of the Bill. I would like to know what kind of authorities are to be asked to consent, and to what they are to consent, because there is a great deal of feeling in what I might call the main food trades of this country that it is much better to have uniformity between, say, the Ports of London, Southampton, Liverpool, Clydeside and places of that sort, than to have each little local authority dealing with the same problem in a different way. I hope that the intention of this clause is not to delegate the matter of the infestation of the main food supplies of this country from the Ministry, because where a man is working under the Ministry's directions he will be able to operate uniform procedure, whether the ship happens to come into London, Liverpool or elsewhere. I hope in those cases there will be no suggestion of delegation of authority to the local authorities.
In regard to other matters—where there is a local inspection of premises, either local food premises, small shops or something like that—it may be well to delegate authority, rather than to multiply the number of officials, because there may be people in the local authority quite competent to do jobs of this sort. Can the noble Lord tell us what the general intention is, and whether it does or does not follow the lines I have just indicated, which I think would be the right lines?

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I fully appreciate the noble Lord's point, and I can give him the assurance he requires. First of all, the powers of delegation will not be exercised for some time; when they are they will be used with great discrimination, and duties will be given only to those authorities who are wholly competent to deal with them. The noble Lord need have no fear upon that point. When delegation is proposed, it will be effected by order, and the noble Lord will have an opportunity for further discussion.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

762

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 6, at end insert ("by order").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 20, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

§ LORD ROCHESTER
If the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is not moving his Amendment to omit the clause, may I ask whet her the Government can give us an undertaking that the principle of the Standing Committee set tip in 1942, which dealt with disputes arising between the Minister of Food and ports, will still be recognised, so that disputes in ports can be dealt with as they are now, under the Infestation Order? Some correspondence has passed between the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries dealing with this point, and I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he could give us any undertaking under this head.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I feel that it would be unwise for me, without having received notice, to say anything on this particular point.

§ LORD ROCHESTER
I apologise.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I will take note of what the noble Lord has said, and supply him with the answer.

§ Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.

§ Clause 23 [Regulations]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
The object of this Amendment is to provide that the Minister shall not have the last word. In other words, it is to invoke the procedure of the statutory instrument. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 12, line 19, after ("Minister") insert ("to give general directions under section thirteen of this Act and").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 24 [Powers of entry]:

§ 5.38 p.m.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This Amendment is consequential upon the deletion of the word "infestation" in Part I. I beg to move.

763

§ Amendment moved— Page 12, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 33.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (5) to insert: (6) If any land or goods therein or thereon is damaged as a result of steps taken by a local authority after exercising a power of entry under this Act compensation in respect of that damage may be recovered by any person interested in the land or goods from the local authority on whose behalf the entry was effected or from the Minister as the case may be.

§ The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment largely to obtain an assurance from the noble Lord. It is quite intolerable that somebody should enter premises and use some kind of vermicide, some disinfectant or whatever it may be called, and, in doing so, destroy a considerable quantity of a person's goods that ought not to be destroyed. I move this Amendment in order to make it clear, before we part with the Bill, that in spite of what is said in the measure itself, a subject may still, under the existing Common Law, obtain damages for negligent treatment which destroys things that ought not to be destroyed and that were never meant to be destroyed under the terms of this Bill. I would like an assurance from the noble Lord that the Common Law rights, under which a man can have access to the courts if cases of that sort occur, will still obtain. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 13, line 29, at end insert the said subsection—(Lord Llewellin.)

§ LORD ROCHESTER
I want, in a word, to support this Amendment, because damage can be caused to land or goods as the result of steps taken after exercising a power of entry. I hope the Government will consider that matter.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
Subsection (6) already provides for compensation for any damage caused by a local authority upon the occasion of an entry. The noble Lord's point is whether the owner of goods damaged by treatment has a right in Common Law. I can assure him that he has.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I beg to move that this subsection be 764 omitted to make the way clear for the new clause later on.

§ Amendment moved— Page 13, line 38, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 24, to insert the following new clause:

§ Application to shipping and aircraft.

§ "25.—(1) His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions of this Act shall apply, subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed by the Order, in relation to vessels or aircraft as they apply in relation to land:

§ Provided that Part I of this Act shall not be applied by any such Order in Council in relation to vessels employed in trading or going between a place in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man and a place not within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

§ (2) Any Order in Council made under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council."

§ The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to extend to both Part I and Part II of the Bill the provision (previously embodied in Clause 8 and limited to Part I) that the Bill shall apply to vessels and aircraft only by Order in Council. This affords opportunity for further discussion with the Ministries of Transport and Civil Aviation and with shipping interests before shipping and aircraft are brought within the scope of the Bill. The Order in Council procedure will allow exceptions and modifications to be worked out. This is our Amendment to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 24, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE
I have already said in our debate to-day that this new clause meets the point on which I had put down an Amendment. Having said that, I drew a picture of the powers that the Minister of Agriculture had before, with the Bill in its original form. The noble Lord then corrected me and said that of course it could not apply to any large vessel such as the "Queen Elizabeth," because it did not apply to ocean-going vessels. I am always willing to be corrected by the 765 noble Lord but, so far as I can understand, the Bill could apply to one of those vessels, if she came from Liverpool to Southamption (as was recently the case), because the vessel would then be "going between a place," and so on. Therefore, while I agree that the Bill could not apply to a vessel which was sailing constantly across the Atlantic, the noble Lord should not be quite so severe on me when a vessel goes from one port to another.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.

§ Clause 28 [Interpretation]:

§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, in the definition of "infestation," to delete "means infestation by rats, mice, insects or mites" and to insert: the presence of rats, mice, insects or mites in numbers or under conditions which involve an immediate or potential risk of substantial loss of or damage to food.

§ The noble Lord said: I do not think there is need for any further discussion on this point, because we discussed this point at the beginning of the Committee stage. I am grateful to the Government for having accepted this definition. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 1, leave out from ("means") to ("and") in line 2 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
If I may say so, after being so harsh with the noble Lord on the question of the journeyings of the "Queen Elizabeth" and vessels of that sort, I think that would make a suitable subject for discussion in about half-an-hour's time. May I express my thanks to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment, because it has helped us considerably. I think it defines infestation very appropriately.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 29 [Application to Northern Ireland]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This is a manuscript Amendment, consequential upon the fact that we have omitted Clause 8 from the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 17, leave out ("eight") and insert ("twenty-five (application to shipping and aircraft)").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth).

766

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
There can be no possible objection to this Amendment, but I think it most important that, when a manuscript Amendment is moved, it should be read to the whole House. I myself was in a "more favoured nation" position because I was provided with a copy of the manuscript Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This Amendment is also consequential owing to the omission of Clause 8 from the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 19, leave nut ("foregoing").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
This is another consequential manuscript Amendment, made necessary by the deletion of Clause 8.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 26, leave out ("eight") and insert ("twenty-five (application to shipping and aircraft)").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 30 [Short title and repeal]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause: (3) This Act shall come into force on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty.

§ The noble Lord said: I now move that this Act shall come into force on the thirty-first day of March, 1950. This date is put in because it gives plenty of time for consideration to the local authorities who are to be responsible for operating Part I of the Bill, and also for the work of preparing the regulations provided for in the Bill. As this is the last Amendment, may I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for his very great help in the consideration of these Amendments? I think it saved your Lordships quite a lot of time. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for his great help. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 32, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
I thank the noble Lord for his kindly references, and also for this Amendment. I think it is a good thing not to rush this measure 767 through too quickly. Indeed, one of the complaints of so many people who will be affected by this measure was that there was not that usual opportunity for consultation beforehand that sometimes takes place. I will say no more about it than that. At any rate, this alteration of the date means that now there should be ample time for this measure, and such Orders in Council as have to be made, to be thoroughly threshed out, thus ensuring that this Bill will be the success that everybody wishes it to be. Finally, may I add, although the person of whom I make this reference is not here, that I think this has been rather a happy birthday party.

§ LORD ROCHESTER
May I also take the opportunity of thanking the Government for their Amendments, which, in our judgment, have vastly improved the Bill?

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ House resumed.