HL Deb 08 December 1948 vol 159 cc891-7

4.59 p.m.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

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 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, they may serve on the owner or occupier of the land a notice requiring him to take within a reasonable period such steps as may be specified in the notice for the destruction of rats or mice or otherwise for keeping the land so far as practicable free from rats or mice; and where the owner of any land 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—

  1. (a) the application to the land of any form of treatment specified in the notice;
  2. (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 BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, in subsection (1), after "numbers" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert: having regard to proximity of infestation or the character of the land or its use likely to encourage infestation, The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises out of a discussion which your Lordships had on the Committee stage, when I drew attention to the very wide provisions of Clause 4. As the Bill is drawn now, I think it obligates the local authority concerned to deal with all land to which rats and mice might resort. There is much land which is potentially land where these animals might go. It is a likely "hunting ground," unless steps are taken to prevent the animals so resorting to that territory.

As I read the Bill, all such land should be treated, even if there is no immediate likelihood of the animals resorting thereto, unless the local authorities can foretell the intention of the animals not to go there—which seems to me to be rather an unfair burden to place upon the local authorities! We have meteorological forecasters at the Air Ministry. We are now to have rat forecasters at the Ministry of Agriculture, in which case I trust that they will forecast more accurately than some of the Air Ministry forecasters have done. In moving this Amendment, I have used the word "infestation," about which we have already had some discussion. There is in Clause 27 a definition of "infestation." So far as I can see, that definition, which refers particularly to Part II of the Bill, would for my purposes apply equally to Part I. Therefore, I have no hesitation in using that particular definition. I shall not go to the length of pressing this Amendment unduly, but I put it down in all seriousness to see whether we can restrict the possibility of local authorities having thrust upon them a heavy burden with very little result. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 45, after ("numbers") insert the said new words.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down this Amendment and for the sporting spirit which must have actuated him. Your Lordships will remember that on Second Reading the noble Lord attempted to knock my middle stump out of the ground by confronting me with the awkward question arising on Part I: Would I define infestation? I am sure the noble Lord will now allow me the opportunity of asking him the same question, because the noble Lord's definition of "infestation" which we then gladly accepted, could not relate to Part I in the sense that he now apparently intends. Infestation as now defined, deals solely with the infestation of food, or infestation that is "likely to cause damage to food." If this definition is to be applied to Part I, then, unless it can be proved that the presence of rats or mice is detrimental, or is likely to be detrimental, to food there is no obligation upon anybody to notify the presence of rats or mice. I am sure that on consideration the noble Lord will agree with me that there are abundant cases where rats and mice will infest various parts of land without any imminent danger to food.

We sympathise with what the noble Lord wishes to do, but I suggest to him that it is adequately covered at the present time. It is quite obvious that if there is an uninfected area within an infested area, and you try to eliminate the infestation, you will very probably drive it into the clean area. That is why the expert rat and mice exterminators should have the necessary safeguards. I can assure the noble Lord that he can safely leave the matter. We cannot in any case accept his Amendment, because I think the noble Lord will agree that he has failed, as I failed, to put forward a good interpretation of the word "infestation" to cover all the circumstances that might arise on Part I of this Bill. For that reason, I regret that I cannot accept his Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, I think that the House would probably agree that anybody responsible for the phrase "proximity of infestation" ought to be made to take it as a subsidiary title.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I am not going to attempt to defend the actual terms of my noble friend's Amendment, but I would like to ask the noble Lord opposite one question. What is the object of this Part of this Bill? I ask that, having regard to one of the arguments which the noble Lord has used. Surely it is to exterminate rats and mice, because they eat food. Really, they are rather nice little things! If they did not eat a lot of food, nobody would bother at all. Some people like to keep mice, and some children like to keep rats. It is only because they do such an immense amount of damage to crops and food that these powers are taken to exterminate them. Therefore, I do not see why on those grounds the noble Lord opposite objected to my noble friend's Amendment, although in regard to the actual wording of it I can see good reasons for its needing improvement.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Surely, the noble Lord has entirely left out of his consideration the great menace that rats are to public health. Surely the spread of disease is an important consideration—I could not say whether it is equal to that of the preservation of food. If, however, this Amendment is accepted, the spread of disease could not be a reason for calling for notification. It could be only by infestation which damaged food. I think the noble Lord will agree with me on that point.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

Although I am not entitled to speak again on this Amendment, may I ask one question? Is it not a fact that the title of the Bill says: to make permanent provision for preventing loss of food by infestation"? That seems to be the primary purpose of the Bill.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I grant that, but there may be subsidiary purposes as well.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1), to omit "within a reasonable period such steps as may be specified in the notice" and insert: within such reasonable period as may be specified in the notice, such reasonable steps as may be so specified. The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage I accepted an Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, dealing with this point. When we came to look at it, however we thought that in the interests of tidier drafting, these present words would be more appropriate. They have exactly the same meaning as the noble Lord intended. I hope, therefore, that in the interests of tidier drafting the noble Lord will agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 2, leave out from ("take") to ("for") in line 3 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. If your Lordships remember rightly, I put down an Amendment which left out the words "as may be specified." We all agreed that between Committee and Report stage we would look into this matter together, to see whether we could draft the Amendment so as to leave in the words "as may be specified" and yet accept the idea behind my Amendment. In this and in the following Amendment but one, the noble Lord has completely met my point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 5, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 13, leave out from ("and") to end of line 14 and insert ("may prescribe the times at which any treatment required by the notice is to be carried out.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) Any notice given under the foregoing subsection requiring the application to land of any form of treatment shall be given to the occupier, except that in cases where—

  1. (a) the land is unoccupied; or
  2. (b) where the land or premises are occupied by more than 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: My Lords, I raised this point on the Committee stage. What I want to ensure is that notice is served upon the right person—namely, on the occupier, if the occupier is the person in a position to carry out the treatment, or on the owner, should there be no occupier, or where the owner provides common services for tenants or has control of, let us say, a block of flats and so is the person who can carry out the treatment. On the other hand, I quite realise that my Amendment may not cover all cases in which notice should be served upon the owner as against the occupier. It has been pointed out to me that that can be done under the provisions of the Local Government Act, and that in the Public Health Act there is the provision which is incorporated in subsection (5), where an owner or an occupier equally can say that the notice has been served upon the wrong person and the local authority have thereupon to change it.

A very similar point was contained in an Amendment that I moved on the Committee stage. On that occasion the noble Lord was good enough to say that in the circular which will go out to local authorities if and when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, attention will be drawn to the necessity of serving this notice initially on the right people—namely, the people who are in a position to take the appropriate action which will be specified in the notice. If the noble Lord can give me a similar assurance in regard to this Amendment, that this point will also be dealt with in the circular, I shall be inclined to withdraw this Amendment, because my Amendment may not specify every instance where notice ought to be served on the owner and the matter is perhaps better left to the provisions which are already on the Statute Book in the Public Health Act of 1936. If I can have that assurance, I shall have achieved the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I promised on the Committee stage that I would try hard to see if we could meet him and, as a matter of fact, we have tried together. The matter is a very difficult one, but perhaps it may afford some encouragement and help if I direct the noble Lord's attention to Clause 9, subsection (1), where he will see these words: A local authority may, for the purpose of enabling them to perform any of their functions under this Part of this Act, require the occupier of any land, and any person who directly or indirectly receives rent in respect of any land, to state in writing the nature or his own interest therein"— and so on. That may help to meet the noble Lord's point that it is essential that these notices, where there are cases of doubt—and there may be many—should be served upon the right person, and that there should be no considerable, or at least preventable, inconvenience. The noble Lord will know that it is impossible to put in the Act that "the local authority shall serve the notice upon the right person." That is, of course, implicit. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and will willingly accept the suggestion that he made in connection with the other case, that we should see that instructions are set out explicitly in an administrative circular to the local authorities. I am also grateful to the noble Lord that, having received this assurance, he will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 [Additional powers of local authorities in relation to groups of premises]:

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 25, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22 [Powers of entry]:

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, as your Lordships will remember, on the insertion of a new clause during the Committee stage we left out separate references to aircraft. These words were inadvertently left in this case, and we are now seeking to take them out. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 10, leave out ("or aircraft").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.