Lords Sitting of 21 February 1961

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester

LORD ALPORT
The Right Honourable Cuthbert James McCall Alport, having been created Baron Alport, of Colchester in the County of Essex, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Duke of Argyll—Took the Oath.

FORM OF PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
2.35 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY LORD BOOTHBY had given Notice of two Starred Questions—namely,
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Minister of Aviation still contemplates raising the landing fees at London Airport on 1st April to a point which will make it not only the worst, but by far the most expensive, international airport in the world.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Minister of Aviation will now desist from his efforts to sell the Blue Streak project abroad, which have been the cause of some embarrassment to our Allies.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the leave of the House to put the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, before the Minister replies, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he considers that the form of this Question is in accordance with the practice of the House, having regard to the serious allegation that it makes against London Airport?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for raising this point of
944
Order. It had been my intention when I came to answer the second Question, which it would have fallen to my lot to answer, to draw the attention of the House to the form of these Questions; but since the noble Lord has, quite rightly, raised it now, it may be convenient to the House if I say now what I would have said then.
My attention has been drawn to the form of both the Questions in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. It has been suggested to me that neither is drawn in the proper form for Parliamentary Questions. I am bound to say that I agree that they are most unfortunately phrased. The Question which I am to answer, for example—that is the second Question—is phrased exactly in the form which is universally considered to be unfair, modelled on the classical example: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Moreover, Questions which contain an opinion or allegation in the guise of a question have more than once been the subject of adverse comment in your Lordships' House.
After consulting the precedents, I considered that it would be in accordance with the practice of the House if I took no steps to persuade the noble Lord to alter the form of his Questions, and I thought it best to leave the Questions for answer in the normal way. However, I would appeal to all noble Lords to frame Questions in accordance with the custom and usage of Parliament.
It might be convenient if I refer to the most recent precedent, because, so far as I know, it has not yet appeared on the Record. It goes back to the year 1951, when the noble Lord, Lord Morris, put down a Question for Written Answer on the subject of the publicity of the British Travel and Holidays Association. In view of what they judged to be the offensive character of its phrasing, both the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Leader of the House, who was then Lord Addison, attempted to persuade Lord Morris to alter the form of the Question so as to exclude the offensive part. Their efforts were of no avail, and Lord Morris questioned the Leader's right to exercise what he, Lord Morris, felt to be the right to censor the terms of his Question. The Question went on to the Order Paper and the Government's reply duly appeared in Hansard. But as it was a

945
written reply, noble Lords did not have the opportunity of raising the point which has been raised to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. The reply disclaimed responsibility for the Association's publicity and, in effect, rebuked Lord Morris for the form of his Question.
The matter was shortly afterwards referred to the Procedure Committee. The Committee agreed that the words contained in Lord Morris's Question were offensive and that the really objectionable thing about them was that they did not constitute a question at all. However, the Committee recognised that occasions on which Peers refused advice to bring their Questions within the bounds of propriety were extremely rare and agreed that the occasional impropriety was the price that had to be paid for the preservation of a valuable privilege. The Committee recommended that no change should be made in the practice with regard to Questions.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I say this? While agreeing with everything that has been said, may I remind your Lordships that the matter is always in your Lordships' own hands? The noble Lord has asked leave to put his Questions. I beg to move that leave be not granted.
Moved, That leave to ask the Question be not granted.—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the Motion is put, may I make one or two observations? I shall be only too happy to withdraw the Questions. If I have fallen into error, I apologise at once to your Lordships. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House knows very well that 1 am accustomed to the procedure in another place. For over 30 years I very seldom put down a Question which was not required either to be withdrawn or to be drastically amended. Imagine my delighted surprise when, almost for the first time in my life, I saw upon the Order Paper two Questions at last exactly as I had written them down. If it be your Lordships' wish, I will gladly withdraw them and put the offending passages in the form of supplementary questions at a later stage. I should like to withdraw the two Questions.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NORTHERN RHODESIA CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at an appropriate time after half-past three my noble friend Lord Perth will be making a statement about the Northern Rhodesia Constitutional Conference.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 8 [Advertisement of proposal to relax bidding regulations]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON)THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON)moved to add to subsection (1):
"and before publication of the notice the Minister or the local authority may, as a condition of entertaining the application, require the applicant to pay or undertake to pay the cost of publication".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that most of the Amendments down for consideration this afternoon stand in my name. Many of them, however, have been drafted to meet suggestions made by various noble Lords during the Committee stage, and I hope that ill shall be able to explain their effect. The first Amendment standing in my name is to implement an undertaking I gave in Committee on the Amendment then moved by the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, and withdrawn by him. The effect of the Amendment is to enable the Minister or the local authority to require an applicant for a relaxation to pay the cost of publishing in a local newspaper the notice specified in the subsection. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested in Committee that it would be better to avoid an absolute rule that in all cases the cost should fall on the applicant. Probably in most cases it will be equitable for the applicant, who will benefit from a relaxation, to bear the cost of advertisement, but the Amendment does not make it mandatory that he should be required to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37. at end insert the said words. —(Lord Brecon.)
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for this Amendment. It entirely meets the point I raised on the Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Powers to repair drains and private sewers]:
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "surveyor" and insert "local authority". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will deal simultaneously with this Amendment and the one which immediately follows. Your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Burden, tabled a number of Amendments to clauses which would give specific functions to certain named officers of local authorities such as the surveyor, the public health inspector or the medical officer of health. I gave an undertaking that all these provisions in the Bill would be looked at again to see whether it is really essential that officials should be named at all and, if it is, to make sure that the right officers have beer referred to.
I said at the time that Parliament has generally been reluctant to put officials of local authorities in a special statutory position, preferring—and I am sure this is right—to place authority and responsibility squarely on the elected council. I think there are, broadly, only two types of case in which responsibilities should be given to officials by Statute. There is the case where some situation may arise calling for urgent action when it is necessary that someone should have the power to act straight away. In such a situation it may be right to give specific powers to a named officer in order to avoid any possibility of a vacuum until the matter can come before the council. The other type of case justifying the specific naming of a particular officer is that in which the decision requires the exercise of some special technical or professional skill.
The first clause in which it seems to me that a departure should be made from the provisions as they appear in local Acts and from the terms of the Bill as it is now drafted is Clause 18, to which these Amendments relate. The clause
948
gave a simpler and more expeditious power to local authorities to repair a drain or private sewer which has not been adequately maintained but which can be sufficiently repaired at a cost not exceeding £50. The local authority may do the work and subsequently recover their actual expenses, up to a maximum of £50. Some drains or private sewers serve more than a single building, and provision is therefore made for the cost to be apportioned between the persons concerned. As drafted, the clause provides that the apportionment shall be made by the surveyor.
I agree that this task would often be carried out by the surveyor, but there are circumstances in which a council might well think that one of their other officers was qualified to do it, and should do it. There is no special urgency in this case: public health will not be endangered by any delay in working out the figures, and in these circumstances I think that the normal rule should be followed and that responsibility should be left on the local authority, rather than on any special official. It will be for the council to decide from which of their officers they will seek advice. These Amendments accordingly make the necessary changes in subsections (1) and (4). Other Amendments which are linked to the general principles I have just mentioned are those to Clauses 19 and 29; and I will deal with those when we come to them. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 3, leave out (" surveyor ") and insert (" local authority ")
line 23, leave out ("surveyor") and insert (" local authority ").—(Lord Brecon.)
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for the comprehensive manner in which he has dealt with the various points raised in Committee. I can assure him that the manner in which he has approached the problem will be received with appreciation by the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Association of Public Health Inspectors. I am sure that they will all be most grateful to the noble Lord for his consideration, and for the Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Disconnection of drains]:
LORD BRECON: My Lords, this clause is the second in the Bill in which I feel that a variation should be made from the local Act precedents, so that powers may vest in local authorities instead of in a named officer. The clause provides that where work is done so that a drain becomes disused or unnecessary, the person carrying out the work shall disconnect and seal the unwanted drain at such points as the "surveyor" may reasonably require. Whilst the question of the appropriate place for sealing a disused drain involves matters with which a surveyor would obviously be competent to deal, I do not think he is necessarily the only official who could decide this point. Nor is the matter so urgent that it cannot with perfect safety be left to the local authority to make its own arrangements, instructing whichever of its officials it deems proper to tender advice. For the general reasons I advanced earlier, therefore, in connection with the Amendments I moved to Clause l8, I suggest to your Lordships that there is no special reason here to depart from the usual rule, or to remove the responsibility from the shoulders of the local authority itself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 3, leave out ("surveyor ") and insert (" local authority ").—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
") Any question as to the reasonableness of any requirement of a local authority under this section shall be determined by a magistrates' count and the court may vary the requirement as it thinks fit."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we were discussing this clause in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, suggested, in effect, that a person who is required under this clause to disconnect and seal a disused drain should not be at the mercy of the local authority when it comes to deciding where the work should be carried out. The noble Lord pointed out—I think quite rightly—that if the disconnection had to be carried out in the street then considerable extra expense might be involved. I promised to look at this point again, and, having done so, am
950
convinced that the Bill needs improving on this point.
The clause imposes a duty on the person carrying out the work to ensure that the disused drain is disconnected and sealed. There is no appeal against this, for clearly all such disused drains should be sealed as a precaution against their becoming a danger to public health. But there may be more than one opinion as to the point at which the disconnection should take place, and on this narrower issue this Amendment will now provide a right of appeal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Powers of local authority in relation to demolitions]:
LORD BRECON: My Lords, this is the fourth and last of the Amendments in my name which spring from the general review of all those provisions in the Bill in which particular officers of local authorities have been referred to by name In many respects it is very similar to the Amendment to Clause 19.
Clause 29 concerns the demolition of buildings. Where a building is to be demolished the local authority may require the person undertaking the demolition to do any of the things specified in subsection (5), including the disconnection and sealing of sewers, drains and water pipes. In its present form paragraph (d) of subsection (5) requires that this disconnection and sealing shall be at such points as the surveyor may reasonably require. For the same reasons as those I gave when explaining the earlier Amendment to Clause 19, I think there is insufficient reason to depart from the normal rule which would leave it to the local authority to take the decision in this case—though in practice they would doubtless instruct or take advice from whichever of their officers they may choose for the task. This Amendment would thus bring this clause into line with subsection (1) of Clause 19 in this respect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 36, leave out (" surveyor ") and insert (" local authority ").—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved, after subsection (6) to insert as a new subsection:
"(7) Nothing in subsection (5) of this section shall be construed as exempting any person from the obligation to obtain any consent required under section sixty-eight of the Third Schedule to the Water Act, 1945 (which relates to alterations in supply pipes and other apparatus), or under any similar enactment."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to make quite clear that there is no possibility of conflict between the requirements of Clause 29 and those which may be found in local Acts dealing with water supply. This clause deals with demolition, and under subsection (5) a local authority may require the person responsible for the demolition among other things to disconnect and seal up any water pipe and remove any disused length of pipe. Water legislation, however, may make it an offence to alter any water pipe or piece of apparatus without the consent of the water undertaker. Where the local authority is also the water undertaker no problem arises, but if there are two separate bodies there is the possibility of conflict. What happens if the local authority requires disconnection of a water pipe at a particular point while the water undertakers refuse their consent and insist on some other point? The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the requirement of the local authority under this clause does not absolve the person responsible for the demolition from obtaining the necessary consent from the water undertaker. I am advised that there is a general rule of law that unless something is said to the contrary, a Statute would not oblige anyone to do an act which would otherwise be illegal. This Amendment, by drawing attention to the fact that the undertaker's consent must still be obtained in appropriate cases, therefore has the effect of making it plain that if the undertaker's consent is needed but is not forthcoming, then the local authority will not be able to enforce any requirement on this point under Clause 29 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 9 at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Cellars and rooms below subsoil water level]:
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), after the first word "shop" to insert
952
"inn, hotel". The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 30 provides that:" No person shall without the consent of the local authority construct any cellar or room in, or as part of, a house, shop or office if the floor level of the cellar or room is lower than the ordinary level of the subsoil water on, under or adjacent to the site of the house. shop or office."
My Amendment seeks to add hotels and inns to the classes of premises I have mentioned. I would submit there are very good reasons for hotels and inns to be included, and I trust the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 3, after (" shop") insert (" inn, hotel ").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I am quite willing to accept the Amendment which the noble Lord has put forward.
On Question, Amendment agreed to
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 24, kne 5, after (" shop") insert (" inn, hotel ").—(Lord Burden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 9, after (" shop") insert ("inn, hotel ").—(Lord Burden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 1, after (" shop ") insert (" inn, hotel ").—(Lord Burden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved, after subsection (7) to insert:
" () Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to the construction of a cellar or room carried out in accordance with plans deposited on an application under the Licensing Act, 1953, to licensing justices on which they made a provisional grant of a justices' licence for the premises of which the cellar or room forms part, or made a provisional grant of a removal of a justices' licence to those premises."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to meet the

953
point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, during Committee which I then promised to look at again. Clause 30 of the Bill deals with the construction of rooms and cellars below the ordinary level of subsoil water and enables the local authority to refuse their consent to such work or to attach conditions as regards the construction and use of a cellar or underground room. Lord Broughshane pointed out in Committee that there is a duplication of control when it comes to the building of licensed premises because the plans will have been examined and passed by the licensing justices. He suggested it would be an extra and unnecessary burden on the developer if this particular aspect of the building had to go through a double scrutiny and particularly onerous and awkward if the requirements of the local authority and of the justices were in conflict.
A number of recent local Acts contain a saving clause on this point and I think it would be right to include one in the present Bill. Your Lordships will notice that my proposed Amendment applies only where a cellar is constructed according to plans deposited with the justices in the expectation that, when the building work is complete, the licence will either be granted or will be transferred there from some other premises:. Once the building is finished and the licence granted or transferred the force of this exemption will be spent so that the construction of any future cellar will be controlled by the local authority in accordance with Clause 30 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Brecon.)
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I hope the Minister will not think me ungracious when I tell him that the Association of Municipal Corporations are not at all happy about this Amendment. It means, of course, that the by-laws of the local authority may not apply. Secondly, the point may arise that the justices may not he Tully conversant with the necessity for carrying out what we have already agreed is necessary. I feel that as the Minister has put the Amendment down I am not prepared to carry my opposition any further, but I thought it right to tell the noble Lord the views of the
954
Association of Municipal Corporations on the matter.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I quite see the point the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has raised, but the fact is that the plan will still have to be submitted to the local authority under building by-laws and later under building regulations, so they will have a chance to see it.
LORD BURDEN: Will they have the final say?
LORD BRECON: No; only in respect of their duties as local authority, and not as licensing justices.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.10 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 7, after (" shop ") insert (" inn. hotel ").—(Lord Burden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Food storage accommodation in new houses]:
LORD BRECON: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment, to delete a word which seems to have crept in by mistake. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 14, leave out (" in ").—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved to add to subsection (1)
"or sufficient and suitable space for the provision of such accommodation by the occupier".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 31 of the Bill gives local authorities a discretionary power to reject plans of a new house, or of a conversion which will result in the creation of separate dwellings, if those plans do not show that each house or separate dwelling will be provided with sufficient and suitable accommodation for the storage of food. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, moved an Amendment during the Committee stage to require that food storage accommodation should be properly ventilated, but he was good enough to withdraw that Amendment

955
when I said that "suitable" would include ventilation where this was necessary. Separate ventilation may not always be needed if, for instance, a refrigerator is used for the storage of perishable items.
Further consideration of this subject makes me think that Clause 31 as at present drafted is perhaps not sufficiently flexible. At one time a separately constructed larder was the accepted way of providing for food storage, but this is not true nowadays. A refrigerator, together with a vegetable rack and a cupboard for dry goods are held to be perfectly satisfactory, and I think that instead of insisting upon a separate built-in larder we ought to allow a person who erects a house to have the right to choose these alternative facilities if he wishes to do so. People moving into new houses may want to have a refrigerator anyway and it may be very difficult to provide space for both a larder and a refrigerator, particularly if the housewife wants a washing machine and spin drier or many of the other appliances that one now has. This Amendment makes it plain, therefore, that plans cannot be rejected if they show that adequate provision is being made or planned for food storage, whether by way of a separate larder or, alternatively, by the other method I have mentioned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 21, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 33 [Provision of bathrooms]:
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert instead:
"(1) Where plans—

(a) for the erection of a house, or of a building part of which is intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, or

(b) of any works involving the conversion of a building into a house or into separate dwellings, or the conversion of part of a building into a separate dwelling,

have been deposited with a local authority in pursuance of building byelaws or building regulations, the local authority may, subject to the provisions of this section reject the plans if they do not show that the house, or as the case may be, each separate dwelling, will be provided with a bathroom containing either a fixed bath or a shower bath, and a suitable installation for the provision of hot and cold water to the bath or shower bath."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are now coming to the question of baths and showers. Since the Committee stage I have had sent to me a good deal of interesting illustrated literature in regard to baths and showers. Your Lordships will recall that we discussed this clause during the Committee stage. It gives local authorities a discretionary power to reject the plans of a new house submitted to it under the building by-laws or regulations if those plans do not show that the house will be provided with a bathroom containing a fixed bath or a shower.
Your Lordships might find it convenient if I summarised the main points made during our earlier discussion of this subject and explained how far I have been able to meet each of them. In the first place, the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Shepherd, suggested that the clause should apply to conversion as well as to new buildings. This point has been accepted in the Amendment now before your Lordships' House. Secondly, it was the general wish of those who spoke on the earlier occasion that there should be provision for hot and cold water, and this point has also been met.
Thirdly, the noble Lords, Lord Burden and Lord Shepherd, both questioned whether the expression "shower bath" was sufficient—could it perhaps cover something less than a full installation: would it be possible, for instance, to meet the requirements of the clause by putting in a shower which was not connected to the water supply or a nozzle which sprayed the room indiscriminately? These points have been watched in the revised version of subsection (1) which I now propose, and I think the wording will achieve the right result. The point about a hot and cold water supply is now met specifically and I do not think there is any real danger of the words "shower bath" being accepted as applying to anything less than a proper installation. The expression is already used in housing legislation without any difficulty having arisen, so far as I am aware, and the fact that the shower must be indicated on the plans means that it will have to be a proper installation.
The point which I have not been able to meet is the one contained in certain Amendments put down during the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Charley, that local authorities should

957
have the power to require owners to construct or provide bathrooms in existing houses. No one would deny far a moment that it is desirable that older properties should be improved in this way where it is possible to do so and where the age and condition of the premises warrants the expenditure, but the practical problems are usually pretty formidable. Plumbing and drainage are, of course, required. In addition, the creation of a bathroom in a house which does not possess one already will involve either building an annexe to the house or using part or the whole of another room. These practical problems are much more difficult to overcome when you consider bathrooms than they are in the case of food storage, and far this reason I do not think we can include in this Bill anything on the lines of Clause 32. The right course, it seems to me, is to tackle the problem of bathrooms by persuasion, backed with grants towards the expenditure involved, and this is exactly what the Government are doing at the moment, and many people are taking advantage of it. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept my Amendment as a substantial extension of the earlier clause, going as far as is practicable having regard to the problems involved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 24, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Brecon.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends, I certainly should like to thank the Minister for this major—and it is major—improvement to the Bill. The noble Lord must be aware that there are many houses which are converted into separate dwellings and flats, and now that we have it in this Bill that separate bathrooms must be provided in these dwellings it is a major improvement. I regret that we have not been able to require by law that all premises should have bathrooms, but we may have another vehicle in front of us in due course into which we can insert that important provision. In the meantime, I would thank the noble Lord for his help and assistance in this matter.
LARD BURDEN: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords on both sides of the House who joined on the Committee
958
stage in pressing the Amendment which I moved dealing with this point will again join with me in expressing appreciation to the noble Lord for the substantial way in which he has met the points which we raised. For myself— I am sure that I speak for others—I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agree to.
3.19 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 38 to insert the following new clause:
"Prohibition of tuberculous persons from handling food
.—(1) If the medical officer of health of a local authority certifies—

(a) that a person is suffering from tuberculosis of the respiratory tract and is in an infectious state, and

(b) that he is occupied in the cooking, preparation or handling of food in the area of the local authority intended for consumption by persons other than himself or members of his household, and

(c) that his continuance in that occupation would in the judgment of the medical officer be a danger to the health of other persons,

the medical officer of health, or any other person authorised in that behalf by the local authority, may request him in writing to discontinue his occupation as aforesaid.
(2) If any person requested as aforesaid complies with the request, the local authority may, if they think fit, compensate him for any loss occasioned by his compliance with the request.
(3) If any person requested as aforesaid fails to comply with the request, a magistrates' court may, on the application of the local authority, order him to comply with the request, and may by any such order, if it thinks fit, direct that such compensation, if any, as it thinks equitable shall be paid to him by the local authority.
(4) If any person fails to comply with any such order, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds and to a daily fine not exceeding forty shillings.
(5) This section shall not apply to an employment or occupation to which the Public Health (Prevention of Tuberculosis) Regulations, 1925, apply."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for bringing this Amendment before your Lordships again. Unfortunately, I was not in a position to be present on the Committee stage of the Bill when the noble Lord, Lord Burden, moved an Amendment on my behalf. The Government did not see their way to accept that Amendment at the time. Since then, I have thought out one or two more arguments with which I should like to

959
back up my case a little further, possibly with better results. The Minister who replied said that the provisions of this clause are of no value in the prevention of tuberculosis. There I do not entirely agree with him. That is a point I would mention now. Although I should not like to say for one moment that the danger of spreading tuberculosis by the methods of which I speak are great, I do think that the danger exists.
May I take one analogy, the form of bovine tuberculosis to which young children are particularly susceptible—that is, tuberculosis conveyed by milk from infected cows. While probably one glass of milk would not do very much harm (although I am not quite sure about that) certainly the infection could be passed through people taking massive regular doses of this particular bovine bacillus; in time that would give children tuberculosis. I believe it would be very difficult to say that a person who went regularly to the same restaurant for a midday and evening meal, as some people do, might not, through getting massive regular doses of tuberculosis bacillus in their food, eventually suffer by that infection getting into their pulmonary system and giving them pulmonary tuberculosis. That is one point I want to bring forward.
The second point is that if people suffering from tuberculosis are allowed to be employed in the preparing and cooking of food, there will be great danger to their colleagues working with them—and usually there are others working in a kitchen or the room where food is prepared. Not infrequently, too, the premises are not on a very big scale and often are not very well ventilated. Surely there would then be danger to the colleagues of a person who has tuberculosis. Then there is a third point. The new clause I am moving specifies that people suffering from tuberculosis should not be allowed in places where food is prepared. Does that apply to a place like a snack bar? More and more of those places are opening now in various town and country districts and there one finds a person handing food across a counter to the customer. If that person is suffering from open tuberculosis, it is quite possible that he will be able to infect those coming to the bar for food. The same thing would apply to waiters, although I am not quite
960
sure whether waiters would come under the heading of people cooking, preparing and handling food. But surely, where a waiter who is suffering from active pulmonary tuberculosis is serving food, there is a certain danger that some of his customers may get infected. Those are the arguments I want to put forward.
There is another very important argument. At the present time the position with regard to pulmonary tuberculosis is far more satisfactory than it was not long ago; and a large number of people suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis get cured and become perfectly normal again. Therefore we want as many people as possible to go into hospitals or sanatoria or even have treatment in their own homes, rather than to carry on working, rather uncomfortably, and infecting the people working around them. I am sure it is bad medical public health practice and bad preventive medical practice to encourage people with open tuberculosis to be going around, because they may so easily infect numbers of young, susceptible people with whom they may come into contact. This seems to me a perfectly proper clause for a General Act, because it would, I believe, make a substantial contribution to improving public health. Therefore I beg to move the clause standing in my name in the Marshalled List.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, with very great deference to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, I do not regard this as pathological sense. I think it is pathological nonsense. It arises out of the fact that bovine tuberculosis can be spread by milk; but bovine tuberculosis is put into the milk from the cow and not from a human "donor" as it were. Human beings in cities have been infected with tuberculosis ever since there have been cities, and the great majority of us have had small infections at some time or other. Some of us have open tuberculosis, but there is no evidence that that causes infection other than by droplet spray. That occurs in any closed area, and if the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, really wanted to prevent the spread of open tuberculosis by droplet spray, he

961
should apply this to cinema usherettes and shop assistants in Woolworth's or any other crowded store. There is no reason at all for singling out the food trade.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Surely he will agree that if one cannot get the complete thing, one may perhaps get part of it and possibly spread from the part to the whole.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am always in favour of half a loaf as being better than no bread, but I am not sure that this is even half an Energen roll, and it cannot hope to achieve what it sets out to achieve. There is no evidence that tuberculosis is spread by food. If it related to streptococcal infection of the bowel, or any of the salmonella group, I would most certainly agree. Then the clause would be reasonable. But there is no evidence at all that this infection is spread by food, so why on earth should we do this? I feel that until evidence is produced the Government should reject the clause.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Taylor has spoken of this proposal as nonsense, but I consider that what he says is the very essence of nonsense. I find myself in your Lordships' House supporting the Liberal Benches. I hope they will not take it as a precedent, for it has never happened before in my life. On this occasion I am identifying myself with the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, whose professional prowess I respect. My noble friend Lord Taylor has advanced an argument which I believe he will realise, on contemplation., is not really worthy of him.
LORD TAYLOR: No, not a bit.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Surely we have been taught that the dried sputum of a tuberculosis patient can be dangerous. Indeed, if we go into any tram or bus in this great metropolis of ours we shall find there a notice saying that the penalty for spitting is £5. That derives from the time when the wonderful people who sat at the feet of the great Chadwick decided that the right way to tackle disease was from the angle of prevention. To-day we are being asked to support an Amendment which
962
embodies one of the principles of preventive medicine. For my noble friend to say something has not been proved is no proof that he is right in opposing this Amendment.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend for a minute, may I point out that I merely said there was not a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis; and if we are to legislate in the complete absence of evidence, hen, 1 must say, I give up.
BARONESS SUM MERSKILL: My Lords, I am only saying that much of our preventive medicine has been introduced because statistically it has been proved that there may be evidence which perhaps pathologically we have not necessarily been able to deduce; therefore I support the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. I believe that any noble Lord here who was told that an individual suffering from active tuberculosis was handling food and that that person was subject to paroxysms of coughing, would be loth to buy food from those premises. It is said that it is nonsense to introduce this, because if you did then you should do the same in regard to cinemas. The noble Lord is quite right: we should be able to do it in cinemas. But it is rather difficult. There are little usherettes in the dark of the cinema who, indeed, might develop tuberculosis because of the conditions under which they work, which are, in fact, a predisposing cause. Certainly, it would be well if the adolescents sitting in the rows in the front of the cinema could be protected from the coughing of the little usherette. But these things are often impracticable. Therefore, we find that we have to do what we always do in this country: adjust our legislation to the needs of the time and do it in piecemeal fashion.
I never apologise for the piecemeal way in which we legislate in this country. Indeed, the empirical approach is, in my opinion, the very essence of our legislation. I am always sorry for the French. Their radical minds are such that they find they cannot introduce legislation unless it is perfect. When listening to my noble friend to-day I thought that perhaps he was in the wrong Chamber and that he should go across the Channel and sit there; for then he would get that

963
perfect Statute for which he is dreaming and longing.
This is the right approach. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is that 1 am not quite sure whether he has properly phrased his objective. As I see it, there are two categories of patients. There is the man or woman who is already certified and known to be suffering from active tuberculosis, and who deliberately takes work in a food shop. I like to think of the best in human beings; but if it were suggested that, in consequence of this action, the local authority would have to give compensation, then there might even be a temptation for some irresponsible man or woman who has active tuberculosis deliberately to take a job in a food shop. Therefore, I say it would be wise to protect the local authority from somebody who might be irresponsible in that way.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lady for one moment? I think there would be some protection because the new clause says that
" the local authority may, if they think fit, compensate …
They are given some protection there.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I was quoting the two categories. First, there is the man or woman already certified and who is known to be suffering from active tuberculosis. Then there is the other individual who is perfectly healthy when he goes into the food shop—let us says a baker or baker's apprentice who may go into a dusty atmosphere. Indeed, the very conditions under which he works offer a predisposing cause of the disease. It seems to me that that patient is in an entirely different category from the other one who is already suffering from active tuberculosis. Apart from that small criticism I am happy to support the noble Lord.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate on the other side, but there are one or two points on which I am not clear. I am not the expert that the two noble Lords and the noble Lady who have spoken are. However, an allusion was made to an usherette in the cinema: an usherette might cough and might have tuberculosis and therefore she should not
964
work there. But surely the general public, the man, the woman, the young person or the child, who goes to the cinema may also have tuberculosis and be coughing. It seems to me that we should ask where we are to stop. Again, the bus has been referred to and the difficulties with regard to it. We all know the various regulations and suggestions that were put out during the war. At that time I was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Health and we tried using persuasion. The word "persuasion" has been used this afternoon: the noble Lord talked of "bathroom persuasion" a little time ago. I should have thought that persuasion was far better, because the public as a whole may be infected, and we should not single out the worker. If a person with tuberculosis happens to go into a restaurant or sits in a canteen, if this situation is so dangerous, is he or she not going to infect the food in the same way? Why should we pick out those who work in this particular industry and not have further regulations, if necessary, for the public as a whole?
3.37 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, my task this afternoon has been made considerably easier than I dared hope it would be When I came into this Chamber, because we have had speeches from two noble Lords and from the noble Baroness, all of whom are doctors, and the House has been enabled to see that there is a distinct cleavage of medical opinion here. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for the moral support which he has given me.
LORD TAYLOR: It was intellectual, my Lords.
LORD NEWTON: And intellectual, too; but I needed the first rather more than the second. I am also grateful to my noble friend for making so very clearly the point which I shall try to make again. This is the same new clause that was moved at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and it fell to me then to advise your Lordships that in the view of my right honourable friend's medical advisers the new clause was not necessary, because they are of the opinion that it would not be of value in preventing the spread of fuberculosis. I endeavoured to nut that argument before your Lordships, but

965
with great diffidence, because I am not a doctor. What I said, I realise, came as a great surprise to many of your Lordships. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Burden, was kind enough to withdraw the new clause in order that your Lordships, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, might be able to consider what I had said and what other Members of your Lordships' House had said. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, was then kind enough to discuss with me how this matter could be raised again on Report, if he wished to do so; and he has put down again exactly the same new clause and he has been good enough to tell me the general line of the arguments he was going to advance this afternoon.
I attempted to argue at the Committee stage that there is no special risk of the transmission of disease through the handling of food which would justify singling out in general legislation this particular activity for prohibition to sufferers from tuberculosis. Since the Committee stage I have re-examined very carefully indeed the medical evidence which has been at my disposal and which, of course, is always at the disposal of my right honourable friend. I am satisfied that I was stating the opinion which is generally held to-day by the medical profession when I said that pulmonary tuberculosis is an airborne and not a food-borne infection and that infection is by inhalation rather than by ingestion of droplets. I was satisfied that this is the clear view of my right honourable friend's medical advisers. Nevertheless, I thought I should like to get even more confirmation of that opinion, and so I referred the question to the Public Health Laboratory Service, and they have reported that, in their view, there is no danger arising from the handling of food by tubercular persons.
Now, my Lords, I turn to the other point, which is the question: are those who are tubercular and who handle food and drink more likely, by the nature of their work, to infect other people with tuberculosis by means of airborne infection—not by means of food, but by airborne infection in the ordinary way? My Lords, I must suggest to you that the answer is surely, "No", because people who are working in the confined atmosphere of a
966
restaurant, café, bar or teashop, if they are sufferers from tuberculosis, are not any more or any less likely to infect people who come into those premises than those who work in shops or offices or other premises which are equally confined. That seems to me to be common sense.
I should like to emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lady Horsbrugh: that someone who is a regular attender at a bar, if he is suffering from tuberculosis, is just as likely to infect the other people who frequent that bar as the waiter or the barman would if he were tubercular. Indeed, my Lords, suppose there were a Member of your Lordships' House who had the misfortune to suffer from tuberculosis and who was also a frequenter of the Guest Room; on this argument, it would have to be considered whether or not he should be restrained from frequenting the Guest Room, for it is an argument which would apply as much to him as to whoever serves behind the bar.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said that, to-day, treatment for tuberculosis is very effective, and from what I have discovered I would most certainly agree with him about that. I would also agree with him that people who have open tuberculosis should not be encouraged to go about too much among the community until they are under proper drug control. But I should have thought that restrictions on their movements could be justified only on the grounds of risk to others, and not their own good. It is, I should have thought, for their own medical advisers to persuade them to do what is for their own good, and I am sure there is not the slightest reason to suppose that the medical advisers of tubercular persons do not do that. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, also mentioned that this clause is already contained in many local Acts, and that is true but I understand that the original reasons for incorporating this clause in local Acts was that it was then believed that tuberculosis was due to an infection of the alimentary tract, a view, I am told, which has now been superseded in the medical profession.
Finally, could I just say a word about vaccination? Your Lordships know that for a long time my right honourable

967
friend and his predecessors have encouraged local authorities to persuade school children and students who are enjoying any form of further education to be vaccinated against tuberculosis. Until quite recently, the lowest age at which these young persons were offered vaccination was thirteen, but, since January 31 of this year, the age has been reduced to ten in those areas where the local health authority considers it would be justifiable to persuade children as young as ten to be vaccinated against tuberculosis.
My Lords, I hope that I have been able to persuade the House that the medical advice, if not of my right honourable friend then, at any rate, of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, should be accepted by your Lordships. And perhaps I should finally say this: that even if one says that there is a cleavage of medical opinion and one is not prepared, as a layman, to say which side of the argument is right, in that position this House ought not to decide to accept a new clause which would impose a new resriction upon the liberty of some of Her Maiesty's subjects.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for the long explanation he has given me of why he does not want to accept my new clause. Although the arguments he has put forward are very plausible, I am not entirely convinced by them. There are one or two things which he said with which I agree and with which I never said 1 did not agree. I never said that pulmonary tuberculosis is contracted by ingestion and not by inhalation. It was not the point of my clause to disprove that at all. In the same way, I firmly maintain that if people who have open tuberculosis are handling food and serving other people, they are more liable to infect those other people than if they have not got it. They are a source of danger of some sort, and of that I am quite sure. I think the most spurious argument of all was that in regard to the fact that we are going to do it for restaurants and not for shops, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I can see no justification for that point at all. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, very much for her support for my
968
Amendment to add the new clause, but in view of the great weight of medical opinion that the noble Lord has brought against me I do not think I am justified in asking your Lordships to divide on this matter. Therefore, very reluctantly, I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [Refuse and litter bins]:
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I undertook to put down an Amendment to give effect to a change proposed in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. The noble Lord wished to extend the powers of local authorities, county councils and parish councils with regard to anti-litter notices. Under the Bill as it stands, such a notice may be displayed only where there is a litter basket. I agree with the noble Lord that it may often be desirable to put up notices in places where no litter baskets have been provided, and I think this Amendment produces the right result. Its effect is that the council may put up a notice in any place in which it is entitled to put a litter basket, whether or not a litter basket is in fact provided there. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 13, leave out ("has been") and insert "may be").—(Lord Brecon.)
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the Amendment as proposed meets the position I indicated, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the previous one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37. line 15, leave out second (" the ") and insert (" a ").—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I have tabled this Amendment in fulfilment of an undertaking I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough. Its purpose is to increase the maximum fine in any case where a person interferes with or damages a litter basket or notice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 20, leave out (" forty shillings ") and insert (" five pounds ")—(Lord Brecon.)
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: My Lords, am grateful to the noble Lord for his Amendment, which goes a long way to meeting my point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

NORTHERN RHODESIA CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
3.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, if it is convenient to you, I will now make the statement on the Northern Rhodesian Constitutional Conference which is being made at the same time in another place.
The Northern Rhodesian Constitutional Conference concluded at Lancaster House on Friday, February 17. A record of the proceedings is being published as a White Paper, Command No. 1295, and is now available in the Printed Paper Office. The White Paper makes clear how far apart the views of the political parties in Northern Rhodesia regarding constitutional change were, and have remained. Accordingly, it became necessary for my right honourable friend to put forward a plan on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. The details are given in the White Paper, and I would here only refer to the main features.
First, there should be an enlarged Legislative Council containing about 45 elected members. The Legislative Council should be composed of three elements—a number of members elected by voters on the Upper Roll, an equal number of members elected by voters on the Lower Roll, and a substantial number of "national" seats in which candidates would have to obtain some measure of support from both Rolls. A possible division would be 15 on the Upper Roll. 15 on the Lower Roll and 15 national seats.
In the national constituencies it is contemplated that to qualify for election candidates should obtain the same prescribed minimum percentage of the votes cast on each Roll and that the voting Dower of the two Rolls would be equalised by averaging the percentage of votes cast on each Roll which is secured by each candidate. There are obviously points on this part of the scheme which will require further consideration. In addition to the elected members, there
970
would be up to six official members: and one or two nominated member; might be added.
Her Majesty's Government feel that this plan, taken as a whole, would achieve the objective of securing a substantially increased number of African members on the Council and at the same time maintain the principle of a nonracial, political approach in which political parties are obliged to seek support from both races. An outline scheme for franchise qualifications on the Lower Roll, which would, it is estimated, enable about 70,000 Africans to be enfranchised on this Roll, is given in the White Paper. It is not intended that there should be any major changes in the qualifications for voters on the Upper Roll, but the alterations which we have in mind might result in between 1,500 and 2,000 African voters becoming eligible for the Upper Roll in addition to those now qualifying.
Under the present responsibilities of the Territorial Government, the Executive Council would consist of three or four officials and six unofficials. The Governor would be Chairman and the Council would be advisory to him. In making his appointments, the Governor would consult with, and pay due regard to, the person or persons who appear to him to command the widest measure of support in the legislature. The Unofficials would include at least 2 African and at least 2 non-African members of the Legislative Council. In addition, Parliamentary Secretaries might be appointed
The Conference agreed that a House of Chiefs should be established in Northern Rhodesia, and full details of this proposal are given in the White Paper.
My right honourable friend informed the Conference that in the view of Her Majesty's Government the new Constitution should include a Bill of Rights designed to safeguard the rights of individuals and the interests of minorities: and that consideration should also be given to the creation of a Constitutional Council to afford protection against unfair discrimination or other contravention of the rights guaranteed to individuals. The application of the provisions of the United Kingdom Government's plan to Barotseland will be discussed with the Paramount Chief.

971
Naturally, many matters still remain to be settled—for example, the delimitation of constituencies; the way in which national members are to be returned, and matters relating to franchise qualifications. My right honourable friend is asking the Governor to give early consideration to these matters, and to bring into consultation with him the political groups in Northern Rhodesia. He will then put forward his recommendations, and Her Majesty's Government will advise Her Majesty on the constitutional changes to be introduced.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we desire to thank the noble Earl for giving us the statement which has been made in another place, a statement which is, of course, very very important indeed. I think that all of us, before we can say very much, will have to make our own very careful study of the White Paper, which is not yet in our hands. I might say, however, that, judging from Press and wireless reports, it would appear that this Conference on the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia has not successfully met the African point of view, and that this is likely to have been because the proposals of Her Majesty's Government have not followed the views of the majority, set out in the Report of the Monckton Commission. They say, in paragraph 114:
" Most of us … recommend that there should be an African majority in the Legislature and an unofficial majority in the Executive Council so constituted as to reflect the composition of the Legislature. Some of us feel that the time has not yet come for an African majority in the Legislature. Others feel that there should be an African majority in the, Executive Council as well as in the legislature."
Of course, the view of the majority of the Members of the Commission was undoubted.
My Lords, there is now, it seems to me, a most delicate and dangerous situation, in which some of the things that are being said by advocates either of African supremacy, or of White supremacy, are calculated not to heal but to widen the breach. I hope that better judgments may lead to a lessening of tension, recognising that in both sides there are strong elements in favour both of rapid advance in the African part of the Constitution and the establishment
972
of a multi-racial constitution. As I have not yet fully studied the statement made to-day, and still have to study the White Paper, I do not propose to say any more, except to urge that an arrangement be made, through the usual channels, for an early debate in your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I might say, so far as the debate is concerned, that that will be done. My noble friend will deal with the substance of what the noble Viscount has said, but the noble Viscount will not forget that there is, in fact, on the Order Paper a Motion in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, which will soon come on for discussion.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I just add my voice to what has been said from the Labour Benches? I think the noble Earl. Lord Perth, has our sympathy for the very difficult time he and his colleagues have been going through. With his well-known sincerity and conscientiousness, I am sure that it has told particularly upon him. As to the outcome, we are sorry: I will not say more than that. I think your Lordships will agree that the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition has to-day put the view of every Party in this House in urging a temperate, quiet and rather slow approach to this most delicate position.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I wonder if I might add a few words and ask two questions? I think we all agree that we shall want to give very careful study to the White Paper, and I am sure we should all echo the statesmanlike words spoken by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition as to the importance of the views of moderate men on both sides having a chance to prevail and be effective. I followed as well as I could the statement made by the Minister of State and, as I followed it, I gathered the answers to two questions, which I would put to him as d should like them confirmed. The first is this. Am I right in understanding that under the Northern Rhodesian proposals, as in the Southern Rhodesian plan, which has already been published as a White Paper, in a number of seats candidates will have to be voted for and elected by voters on both classes of register, higher and lower, or what is called in the Southern Rhodesian White Paper, A and B rolls?

973
My second question, following from that, is this. If I am right in that reading of the Northern Rhodesian proposals, do they not maintain the principle —to my mind, the vital principle—of combining a qualitative franchise with a common roll, which was so clearly and admirably stated, if I may say so, in the White Paper of my noble friend the former Secretary of State for the Colonies? I would only say that, while awaiting the debate, if I am right in my construction of the proposals, then I think that in principle they must command the support of all of us on both sides who have worked so hard and so long for racial non-discrimination and racial partnership.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, perhaps it may be convenient if I answered immediately the two question put by the noble Earl. To both those questions the answer is a categorical, Yes—that is to say, there are candidates, the national candidates, who will be voted for by both upper and tower rolls and therefore will need to make an appeal to voters on both upper and lower rolls; and secondly, the principle of the qualitative franchise remains as a necessary part of the whole scheme. I am very glad of the conclusion which the noble Earl draws as a result of these two answers.
I would also take this opportunity of saying how grateful I am to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for his suggestion that we should avoid at this moment anything which might increase tension, because, as both he and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, these are delicate times and we are most anxious that nothing should be done which would cause increasing tension. It is very right that the final debate and conclusions on our plan must await a detailed study of the White Paper. But the noble Viscount asked why we did not follow more closely the recommendations which some members of the Monckton Commission put forward. The answer is quite simply that we believe that what we have put forward is better, because it maintains the principle of a non-racial approach which does not rule out or guarantee a majority to any race but works on a non-racial basis.
4.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT BOYD OF MERTON: My Lords, it is unusual, but I believe not unprecedented, to address your Lordships' House for the first time by means of an intervention of this kind. In the circumstances, I feel obliged to ask for a double measure of indulgence. As I was the author, along with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, of the White Paper of 1958, I think it would be appropriate if, very briefly, I made a few observations.
Both my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary and I had to reach our own decisions regarding the advice which we felt we should tender to Her Majesty. In his case, as in mine, the solution is a complicated one, as your Lordships will realise, having heard the statement to-clay, but the problem is a very complicated one as well. I think it is true that both the Colonial Secretary and I have come to the same conclusion: that parity between the races or something more or something less would lead inevitably to a dead-end or to a struggle for power fought out on a purely racial basis, involving the domination of one of the major races., as such, in Northern Rhodesia by the other race as such.
To-day, Her Majesty's Government, as I myself, are determined to work for a system under which candidates in any contested seat will be obliged to appeal to the voters of other races than their own, so that politics in Northern Rhodesia should develop on Party and not on racial lines. Both I and my successor have had to accept the fact that in present circumstances in certain areas in Northern Rhodesia the race of a candidate is a predominant consideration in the eyes of the local people. While recognising this, both my successor, so far as I can see, and I, are determined to see that nothing that is done, recognising this fact, should frustrate our aim to provide for the development of Party politics on non-racial lines.
These were the clear intentions of Her Majesty's Government two years ago and I hope and believe that they are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government to-day. If so, then I am sure that we shall all give very sympathetic consideration to the White Paper, when we read it, and to the forthcoming talks in

975
Lusaka. There are a number of things relating to national seats, to the delimitation of constituencies, to the franchise and to the gradual merging of the two rolls, on which it would be impossible to come to any kind of conclusion in advance of reading of the White Paper.
In conclusion, may I say that in any debate we may have, I am sure that we shall be told by Her Majesty's Government why, after only two years, any changes other than ordinary evolutionary changes, were necessary. I know that Her Majesty's Government recognise that constitutional changes or a Bill of Rights or assurances of this kind, to have validity and confidence placed in them, must have an air of permanence about them. I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to make these observations.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, while congratulating the noble Viscount on having made his maiden speech in this House, may I say that if there are any more speeches on the lines of the one just delivered we must go on with the debate —exactly what I wanted to avoid.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, while I should like to say that the whole House is grateful to my noble friend for his intervention, which, after all, only he could make, I hope that it will not deprive the House of the benefit of what I would call, without derogation, a proper maiden speech later, so that we may have, as it were, a pleasure twice enjoyed. At the same time, I think that probably the House had better take the advice of the noble Viscount and not pursue this particular matter further at the present time. After all, the great majority of Members of the House have not read the White Paper, and the object of this statement has been to place the White Paper before Parliament and the nation in the hope that it may be studied on its merits and then debated on its merits before attitudes are taken in advance of reading it.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is to me to hear my late chief make his first statement, even if it is on this occasion, in this House. I would just add this. As he says, your Lordships will find from
976
the statement I have made that we have maintained the principle of a non-racial political approach; and secondly, on the question of changes, as he says, that is appropriate for the debate.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
4.11 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Clause 51 [Management of parks and pleasure grounds]:
LORD BRECON: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to correct a printing error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 43, leave out (" park ") and insert (" part ").—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved to add to subsection (3):
" and in exercising their powers under paragraph (a) of that subsection, the local authority must satisfy themselves that they have not unfairly restricted the space available to the public for games and recreations.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a good deal of discussion about this clause at the Committee stage when the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised a point which I have tried to meet in this Amendment. He suggested that when pitches in a park are being used by clubs for the playing of team games there might be insufficient space left—or even no space left at all—for those individual members of the public who want to play what one might call unorganised games. I think he will agree that in view of the limitations already contained in subsection (3) this is not likely to happen in practice, though I, for my part, should be prepared to allow that it is not impossible.
I think we should be displaying a quite unreasonable distrust of local authorities if we could not leave them as much discretion as possible in the management of their parks, and for this reason we ought not to try to tie them down with more detailed requirements and restrictions. It would, in any case, be extremely difficult to devise anything very precise when one is trying to embrace all sorts o: parks and all sorts of games. What I have therefore tried to do in this Amendment is to make sure that each

977
authority specifically considers the claims of all sections of the community when it allows clubs to use pitches and facilities in a park. The general words in the Amendment would apply whether the authority proposed to let a cricket pitch or a football pitch, or to allow a club to use the bowling green or athletics track. I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment as a reasonable and adequate outcome of our earlier discussion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 13, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Brecon.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, realising the dilemma which the noble Lord put to us, I think it is not desired unduly to fetter the discretion of local authorities, and I am satisfied with the Amendment the noble Lord has moved. This does not fetter their discretion; it merely asks them to take certain facts—and I am sure the House will agree proper facts—into account. But, having taken them into account, they are still left free to act as they think right.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not entirely satisfied in this matter. The Amendment moved by the noble Lord has not unfairly restricted the space available, but my concern on the Committee stage was not so much over the question of space as over the facilities available in a sports ground or a recreation ground. As the noble Lord may remember, I was concerned that as the Bill stands a local authority could permit the exclusive use by any club or any body of persons of part of a recreation ground. I explained to the noble Lord that, as I see it, a local authority could, if it wished—and I stress "if it wished" —give a particular tennis club the exclusive use of say, a tennis court. The Amendment that he has moved to-day does not meet that particular concern.
I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider instead of the word "space" in the expression "space available to the public", using the word "facilities". That would then embrace not only the space in the recreation ground, but also the made-up facilities—the tennis courts, the bowling greens and so on. If that were done, it would mean that the local authority would have to take into account
978
the requirements of the ordinary people to be able to make use of the built-up facilities in the recreation ground. Perhaps the noble Lord would think about this, and, if possible, I would ask him to agree to the use of the word "facilities" instead of "space". That, I suggest, would give a protection which, in my view, the Bill requires.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I had a word to say in Committee on this clause and I urged the Minister not to give way to the pressures that were being put upon him to diminish the powers of local authorities under it I think they are good powers, and 1 believe that the local authorities should have them. But, in view of what the Minister has said, and for the reason already given, that it is only discretionary in the local authorities, I accept the Amendment that he has moved, and I hope that it will be embodied in the Bill.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Silk in, feels that the Amendment meets what he had in mind. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the clause does permit the exclusive use by any club; but that is not a permanent use. "Exclusive use" may mean using a football pitch or a cricket pitch for the Saturday afternoon; and it could also mean exclusive use of a tennis court for a Saturday afternoon to play organised games I do not think it in any way deprives the public wholly and permanently of any part of the park.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would an "exclusive use" mean the use of a tennis court right through the week, or throughout a month? It is the words "exclusive use" that I am not happy about.
LORD BRECON: It depends on the local authorities and on what demands are made by the sporting fraternity of the area. I will look at the noble Lord's suggestion to leave out the word "space" and substitute "facilities'". But I should prefer to write to him rather than to give him an answer now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved to add to subsection (9):
"and as if references in those sections to a local authority included references to a parish council".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been tabled to remedy a small omission in Clause 53. This clause enables local authorities and parish councils to provide boating pools in parks and pleasure grounds which they provide or manage. Subsection (9) is a protection for water rights and works for draining or improving land. This protection is achieved by applying two sections of the Public Health Act, 1936, to this clause. Section 331 of the 1936 Act provides that nothing shall be done, without the consent of the person concerned, which would injuriously affect any reservoir, canal, watercourse, river or stream or the water therein. And Section 334 provides that nothing shall be done, without the consent of the person concerned, which would interfere with sluices, sea defences or other works for draining, preserving, improving or irrigating land.
There is, however, a gap in the way subsection (9) of Clause 53 is drafted, which this Amendment would close. Because the powers in the 1936 Act are given to "local authorities" the protective provisions of Sections 331 and 334 are related to the activities of "local authorities". The expression "local authority", however, in the 1936 Act means the council of a county borough, borough, urban or rural district. It does not include parish councils. Because this clause would enable parish councils. as well as local authorities, to provide boating pools, it is necessary to have this specific provision to ensure that Sections 331 and 334 of the 1936 Act will also apply to parish councils for the purposes of this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41. line 17, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Charges in cases exempted under s. 4 of Act of 1937]:
4.20 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved, in subsection (2), after the second "incurred" to insert:
"(after deducting the revenue accruing from the sale of products resulting from the treatment of those trade effluents)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a similar Amendment to one which I
980
moved at the Committee stage of this Bill, and 1 do not wish to make the same speech over again. The question at issue is whether local authorities, in calculating their expenses for dealing with effluents, should or should not take into account any revenue derived from the sale of the products they get from these effluents. At the last stage of the Bill, my noble friend in answering said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 228 (No. 31), col. 52]:
" That expense is unquestionably net expense."
The wool trade is still rather uneasy about this position, because they say that the Minister says what the Bill means and that is what the draftsman intends it to mean, but, of course, the draftsman of the Bill has not the last word on what the Bill means—it is the courts. Such legal advice as is available to my friends is to the effect that the expense is not necessarily net expense.
Then the Minister says that if the local authority choose to act otherwise—and the wool trade have every reason to believe that at least one local authority will act otherwise—there will be a right of appeal to the Minister. That is precisely what they want to avoid. They do not want to appeal to the Minister to get something which the Government intended should be included in the Bill the whole time. Therefore they say, "Why on earth should we not put this in the Bill and make it quite clear beyond any shadow of doubt what the Bill means, and guard against any necessity for any appeal?". I make the usual disclaimer. My wording is obviously entirely wrong, and would play havoc with the Bill, but it is not my business to draft. I have put down the words in the hope that at the next stage of the Bill the Government will see their way to meet me by drafting something which will put beyond any doubt what they say the Bill now means. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 41, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Hawke.)
LORD BRECON: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said, this is a revised version of the Amendment moved in Committee. I am afraid that my answer must still be that no provision on these lines is needed. Under

981
the clause as it stands, the local authority is required, in fixing charges, to have regard
"to the nature and composition of the effluent",
and to
"any additional expense incurred or likely to be incurred … in connection with its reception or disposal".
As I said in Committee, no local authority in the face of these requirements could properly ignore any significant return which they were getting from the products of treatment and have regard only to gross costs of reception and treatment. if any authority were so unreasonable as to do this, the Minister would certainly not uphold their action on appeal.
As I have said in another connection, whenever we spell out in this way something that would otherwise unquestionably be implied without statement, we may raise doubts, perhaps troublesome and certainly needless doubts, about matters that have not been similarly treated. The noble Lord desires that the clause should set out in some detail a single consideration which may sometimes be relevant in fixing charges but which is without any real doubt already covered by the clause as it is drafted. My answer must be that the clause is really better without it. As I said in Committee, the fact that this is very rarely a factor of any importance at all—I think it applies to only three local authorities—does not strengthen the noble Lord's case. Even had this not been so, I believe that the Amendment would still be undesirable. I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment as it is, but if it will give any satisfaction to the noble Lord I will speak to my right honourable friend about it, and perhaps it can be dealt with in another place.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for repeating his assurances which, I must add, are still open to exactly the same doubts that I mentioned before, in that there are two different sets of lawyers disagreeing on how to interpret the Bill. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my noble friend for his assurance, and I hope he will see his way to doing something at a later stage in the Bill. I assure him that my friends in the wool trade are pos-
982
sessed of that very well known Yorkshire tenacity in these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 [Postponement of right to discharge trade effluents in special cases]:
LORD BRECON: My Lords, these two Amendments are linked together, and it would be convenient to consider them both at the same time. I have given further consideration to the suggestion made at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Jesse], that the references to the occupier of trade premises in subsection (2) of this clause might prove prejudicial to owners. I think the point which the noble Lord had in mind will be met by these Amendments. The effect is to require the local authority to notify both the owner and the occupier of the trade premises if it is intended to apply to the Minister under subsection (1) of this clause for a postponement of the right to discharge trade effluent. Either person will therefore have an opportunity of making representations to the Minister against the local authority's application. Before making the decision, the Minister will be required, as a consequence of the second of the Amendments, to take into account any representations from either the occupier or the owner of the premises or, of course, from both of them. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 47, line 29, after first ("the") insert ("owner and").
line 32, after ("the") insert ("owner or ").—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved, after Clause 66 to insert the following new clause:
Restriction of disclosure of information
".—(1) If any person discloses any information which has been furnished to him under the Act of 1937 or this Part of this Act he shall be guilty of an offence, unless the disclosure is made—

(a) with the consent of the person by whom the information was furnished: or

(b) in connection with the execution of the Act of 1937 or this Part of this Act; or

(c) for the purposes of any proceedings arising out of the Act of 1937 or this Part of this Act (including appeals and applications to the Minister and arbitrations) or of any criminal proceedings whether so arising

983
or not, or for the purpose of any report of any such proceedings.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under the foregoing subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage 1 promised the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, that I would sympathetically consider the suggestion that there should be some provision additional to subsection (5) of Section 287 of the Public Health Act, 1936, restricting the disclosure of information (as to manufacturing processes,et cetera) furnished to local authorities under the Bill. Section 287 (5) deals merely with information obtained in a factory, workshop or work-place, and the noble Lord wanted something to protect also information supplied to local authorities under Part V of the Bill.
The suggestion was that a provision in the form of Section 26 of the Clean Air Act, 1956, should be put in the Bill. There are, however, certain objections to a provision on these lines. It would apply only to information furnished or obtained under the Bill, not under the Act of 1937. Moreover, it would cover only information about any manufacturing process or trade secret, although effluents may arise from premises used for agriculture, horticulture, and scientific research and experiment where there may be no manufacturing activity and nothing that could be described as a trade secret but where there may be a real need to safeguard information. For these and other reasons the clause moved by the noble Lord was not considered adequate for the purpose.
The clause I now beg to move (which will supplement Section 287 (5) of the Public Health Act, 1936) makes it an offence to disclose any information furnished under either the Act of 1937 or Part V of the Bill unless the disclosure is made either with the consent of the person by whom the information was furnished, or in connection with the execution of the Statutes, or for the purpose of any proceedings referred to in paragraph (c) of the clause, or any report of any such proceedings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 66, insert the said new clause —(Lord Brecon.)
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for meeting me on this point, which is an important one to industry. I would also say that in my opinion his Amendment is considerably better than the one I put down on Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 [Explanation of Act of 1937]:
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I have given further consideration to the helpful suggestion made at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, that an Amendment should be made to ensure that the Minister's powers to amend or adapt local Acts under Section 12 of the Act of 1937 (so as to bring them into conformity with the provisions of Part V of the Bill) should apply to local Acts passed after the Act of 1937 came into operation. This new subsection will remove any doubt that there may be on this point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 35. at end insert—
(" (2) It is hereby declared that the power of the Minister to amend or adapt local Acts under subsection (1) of section twelve of the Act of 1937, as applied to this Part of this Act, applies to local Acts coming into force after, as well as before, that Act.")—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Discharge of steam]:
LORD BRECON: My Lords, this Amendment is to correct a purely minor drafting slip. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 14, leave out (" subsection ") and insert (" section ").—(Lord Brecon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74 [Byelaws as to seaside pleasure boats]:
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY had given Notice of four Amendments to subsection (1), the first being in paragraph (a) to leave out "pleasure boats" and insert:
"water craft when adapted and used for purposes of pleasure".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had some discussion on the Second Reading as to whether there ought not to be some sort of definition of "pleasure boats" for the purposes of this clause.
As your Lordships are aware, the object of the clause is to give the authorities the power to make by-laws for the control of these pleasure boats, which are often, as I suppose everybody must have noticed, a source of danger to bathers and to the rather more sedate type of user of other pleasure boats and people of that kind. The local authorities, or some of them, are still a little worried on this particular problem. Obviously the pleasure boats that need to be con trolled mainly are those which are run by irresponsible individuals rather than those 14 hitch ply publicly for hire, and indeed I think it is fairly clear from discussions which have gone on that the main object of the Minister is to control that type of pleasure boat.
The difficulty is felt that in earlier Acts of Parliament this term "pleasure boat" has already been used, not to describe this privately-owned type of boat to which I have referred, but to describe the other sort of boat which, although it is not a public boat, does ply publicly for hire. It is felt, by at any rate some of the local authorities, that in those circumstances, if they came before a court for a ruling as to the meaning of the expression "pleasure boats" in this particular clause, there is at any rate some danger that the court would take the view that, since this expression appears in earlier Acts of Parliament, the same interpretation would have to be rut upon it. If that were in fact so, clearly the type of pleasure boat that it is most important to control by means of these powers would escape altogether, and it was with that thought in mind that I put down this series of Amendments. It may well be that they do not altogether satisfactorily deal with the position, but we are not expert draftsmen, and if the noble Lord who replies feels that there is a substantial point here, no doubt with the expert assistance which is at his command he will be able to do something better, either in your Lordships' House or in another place. At any rate, it is for the purpose of bringing this matter to his attention and seeing what he feels about it that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 4, leave out (" pleasure boats ") and insert (" water craft when adapted and
986
used for purposes of pleasure "1.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I say that I agree with the object of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, entirely, but I think his wording is not right; cannot make out whether it is too restrictive or whether it goes too wide. This somewhat vague phrase "water craft when adapted and used for purposes of pleasure" really conveys to my mind an ancient Roman orgy, and very little else. Perhaps I may suggest, before the Minister replies, that some such wording as "pleasure boats, whether publicly or privately owned, whether plying for hire or not" is really the object of the exercise. I do not think the noble Lord's wording would in fact be specific enough.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has told your Lordships that he and his friends are worried lest Clause 74 as it stands will deal only with boats which are for hire for pleasure, the sort of boat that might be hired by an individual, that might be hired for a party, or possibly the type of boat that at seaside resorts is popularly called "The Skylark". I assure the noble Lord, and my noble friend Lord Derwent, that that in fact is not so. The term "pleasure boats" as used in this clause will apply to all types of pleasure boat, whether they be privately owned, whether they be borrowed or whether they be hired, no matter by whom, arid, of course, no matter who may be in charge of them. The noble Lord referred to irresponsible people. I assure him that the purpose of this clause is to catch those very people in the boats which he described.
Thanks to the notice which the noble Lord gave me, I have been able to speak to Parliamentary counsel about the matter, and I am assured that this clause is unlimited in its application to pleasure boats. I hope that what I have said will be noted and no doubt will persuade the noble Lord that this Amendment will not be needed and I hope that my noble friend Lord Derwent understands that his fears are not in fact proved.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am glad to have the noble Earl's assurance. I hope that he is right. I have a lurking

987
fear that it may not quite work out that way. I should have been glad to accept the rather more reasonable suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. I was a little unhappy about the actual terms of this proposal. However, in view of what the noble Earl has said on behalf of the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, and I shall not move the other Amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 [Water supply to houses]:
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "forty" and insert "sixty" [pounds]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple Amendment which is moved because of the decline in the value of money since the original figure was fixed in 1936. Section 138 of the Public Health Act, 1936, enables a local authority to require the owner of a house to connect to it a piped water supply if this can reasonably be done. If a notice under this section is not complied with, the local authority may themselves provide or secure the provision of the supply of water for the house or houses in question, and may recover from the owner or owners concerned any expense reasonably incurred by them in doing so.
Subsection (3) of Section 138 limits the amount in respect of any one house to the amount of £20. Clause 76 of this Bill proposes to increase the sum to £40. I am advised, however, that the work could not be carried out for £40, and therefore an owner, or owners, might put on to the local authority the responsibility of providing the piped water supply, and in that way get out of a portion of the costs which would have to be borne by the local authority. Quite frankly, I do not see why ratepayers should be called upon to find the money. The local authority should be entitled to charge a sum which will properly compensate them for the work done. It may be said that in regard to one house the cost would be nothing much, but if it were spread over an estate comprising a large number of houses the cost might amount to a considerable sum. In those circumstances, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 5. leave out (" forty ") and insert (" sixty ").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has said. I am in agreement and, if he feels that he would like to put up the price of things in these days. I am willing to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.43 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 76 to insert the following new clause:
"Washing facilities at inns, etc
Section eighty-nine of the Public Health Act, 1936, shall have effect as if after the words 'sanitary conveniences' in subsection (1) of that section there were added the words and washing facilities '."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the new clause standing in my name on the Marshalled List. In the first place, it seeks to provide for the installation of sanitary conveniences up to what one might reasonably describe as decent hygienic standards. I realise that I have no precedent for asking the Minister to accept the Amendment; it may be that it goes too far at the present time. But it is possible, I believe, that in some legislation which may come before us in the future dealing with miscellaneous powers of local authorities and so on, a clause similar to this might be considered desirable. If the Minister Is not prepared to accept this Amendment, on the ground that there is no precedent for such a provision, and it might overweight the Bill, I should be quite prepared to withdraw it. But I should like to hear what the noble Lord has to say in regard to the Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 76 insert the said new clause —(Lord Burden.)
LORD BRECON: My Lords, a later Amendment in my name meets, I hope, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burden when we were discussing Section 89 of the Public Health Act, 1936, in Committee. But I am afraid I cannot go all the way with him by accepting this Amendment too. I fully appreciate the desirability of providing washing facilities: that is not disputed at all. But what we have to consider is whether it is right to give statutory powers to local authorities to require such facilities to be installed in the places to which Section 89 applies.

989
There is no precedent in any local Act for a provision on these lines, and so far as the Bill deals with Amendments to the law "commonly made in local Acts" this particular proposal does not fit in at all. The only occasion on which a local authority has sought to obtain such art amendment was in the London County Council (General Powers) Bill in 1959. The clause was then examined by an Opposed Bill Committee of your Lordships' House who were sufficiently impressed with the arguments advanced by petitioners against the clause that they struck it out of the Bill. The proposal, therefore, is not free from controversy and is one which has been rejected by your Lordships' House on the one and only previous occasion on which it has been considered.
The difficulty is a practical one more than anything else, and is not dissimilar from the difficulty I have already referred to in connection with the provision of bathrooms in existing houses. In many cases, particularly in small catering premises, it would be extremely difficult o insist upon the provision of washing facilities because of lack of space or other structural snags, and I suggest that it would not be right to extend statutory powers when we know that in a large proportion of instances it will be impossible for them to be used. I am sorry not to appear more helpful, but I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that this is not a simple matter. I trust that he will not feel obliged to press this Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BRECON LORD BRECON moved, after Clause 77 to insert the following new clause:
Meaning of refreshment-house in s. 89 of Public Health Act, 1936
". It is hereby declared that the expression" refreshment-house "in section eighty-nine of the Public Health Act, 1936, means any building in which food or drink is sold to and consumed by the public."
The noble Lord said:
My Lords, I have further considered the Amendment to Section 89 of the Public Health Act, 1936, which the noble Lord, Burden, moved in Committee. Your Lordships will recall that Section 89 en-
990
ables a local authority to require the owner or occupier of
" any inn, public house, beer house, refreshment house or place of public entertainment "
to provide and maintain sanitary conveniences for the use of the people frequenting the premises. Some local authorities have felt doubtful about the expression "refreshment-house", and think it might have a restricted meaning derived from the Refreshment Houses Act, 1860.
The advice I have received, as I mentioned during the Committee stage, is that the words "refreshment-house" in the Public Health Act, 1936, have no special or limited meaning, and would, in fact, include cafés, restaurants and other establishments which, in ordinary parlance, are thought of as refreshment houses. But I agree that two recent local Acts, promoted by Wallasey Corporation and Cardiff Corporation, have cast doubt upon this view because they have included some words to elaborate and explain the expression "refreshment-house". For this reason I am moving the present Amendment to make it clear that Section 89 of the 1936 Act applies to all places where food and drink is sold to the public and consumed on the premises. Your Lordships will gather from what I have said and from the drafting of the new clause that it does not, in my view, do more than clarify what I am advised is the existing position. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 77 insert the new clause. (Lord Brecon.)
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am sure that the local authorities will be glad to read the statement of the noble Lord, and particularly to have this Amendment embodied in the Bill. The fact that two local authorities felt it desirable to deal with the matter indicated the doubt which exists in the minds of local authorities. While it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has said, that this clarifies the meaning of the wording in the main Act, it is a clarification which has been badly needed by local authorities, and I am sure that the Association of Municipal Corporations will be grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ETC. (PENSIONS) BILL
4.50 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order):
Bill reported without amendment.

OVERSEAS SERVICE BILL
4.51 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.—(The Earl of Perth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Power to contribute to expenses
1. —(1) The Secretary of State may enter into agreements with governments of overseas territories for reimbursing those governments, to the extent specified in the agreements, in respect of such expenses incurred by them—

(a) in connection with the employment in the public services of their territories of persons designated by him in accordance with the agreements; or

(b) in respect of compensation paid to persons so designated who are or have been employed in those services;

as may be specified in the agreements; and may out of moneys provided by Parliament make any payments falling to be made under the agreements.
(2) No such agreement shall be entered into, and no person shall be designated under such an agreement except with the consent of the Treasury.
THE EARL. OF LUCAN THE EARL. OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (2), to omit "and no person shall be designated under such an agreement." The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and, at the risk of some repetition of what was said last week on the Second Reading, I should like briefly to say why my noble friends and I think it necessary for this point to be clarified. The noble Earl, in winding up on the Second Reading, made it clear that agreements under this Bill were made between Her Majesty's Government and the Overseas Governments concerned; that certain categories were to be
992
defined, and officials were to be designated as falling within that category. But what we found strange, and what we did not consider to have been entirely cleared up by the noble Earl in winding up last week, is the power which, under Clause 1 (2) of the Bill is given to the Treasury to veto a designation of individual officers.
It is obviously right that the Treasury should have to give their consent to the classification; and the Treasury having agreed that a certain category or class of officers should be eligible and come within the scope of the Bill, there is then the question of defining which individuals fall within that definition. Surely the Colonial Office are capable of interpreting a Bill and defining and deciding, under the terms of the Bill, which individual officers come within that category. If the Treasury are to be asked to give their consent to each case, this is surely a shuffling-off of responsibility by the Colonial Office; because we cannot believe that the Treasury would have as much knowledge of the status and conditions of service of individuals as the Colonial Office have. The Treasury can decide only which categories should be entitled to the benefits under the Bill. The Colonial Office, with their contacts with Overseas Governments, are in a better position to decide which officers come within this provision. If we could have clarification of that point by the noble Earl I believe that it would meet the case.
Amendment moved—
Page I, line 17, leave out from (" into ") to (" except ") in line 18.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD OGMORE: I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, on this Amendment. I believe that he is absolutely right—in fact, I would go rather further than he has gone, and say that the Bill in this form is insulting to the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office have had vast experience in this field in dealing with the appointment of officials of all types for very many years; and to require the consent of the Treasury to be obtained—as, under this Bill, it has to be—for every single appointment of all these officials by the Secretary of State for the Colonies seems to me a most extraordinary provision to put into a Bill.

993
It is true (and I guarantee that this is the answer the noble Earl will give) that the Treasury may, under subsection (3), make a kind of "block grant" of the consent. They may say that they give their consent to the designation generally of all persons of a certain description; for example, I suppose they may say that all doctors who hold certain qualifications may be employed by the Colonial Office. But, on the other hand, they may not. It is not easy to decide which policy they are to adopt: whether they are to insist on approving every single appointment or are to make a block approval. It is not we or the Secretary of State for the Colonies who will decide: it is some official in the Treasury. I know that in these days we are very largely bound by what the Treasury say, and that they enter into all our calculations. The whole of our lives are largely bound up with decisions of the Treasury, but this is really going much too far. In my view, unless the noble Earl has some far better defence of this policy than I have yet heard from him, the Committee ought to reject the portion to which the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, so rightly objects.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has raised this question again, because it gives me a second opportunity to try to explain why we in the Colonial Office, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said about how competent we are, and how unnecessary it is to go to the Treasury, in fact, welcome the provision by which we have the assistance, if we so desire, of the Treasury in certain cases which may arise in connection with the designation of persons under any agreement we make with an overseas Government.
If we look at the Bill, it is important to remember that this provision is in fact in regard to agreements that are made with overseas Governments, and the problem that arises is the interpretation of those agreements. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogrnore, says, ordinarily we shall, in fact, rely on subsection (3) of Clause 1, which says:
"The consent of the Treasury to the designation of any person under such an agreement may be given generally …
994
We shall rely on that; and that is what has in fact already happened.
But we are, in all of this, somewhat in the position of, shall I say, agents for the overseas Government, in that we know the sort of thing they want; we work out with them, so far as we can, what are their wishes, and, under those conditions, it is, I think, a necessary and good thing to know there is a further watchdog, as it were, on the expenditure of what, after all, will be a very great deal of money over the next ten years.
But if I might come to the practical working of this scheme, which incidentally is exactly similar to that which applies in all the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, on which we have had no difficulty with the Treasury, I would point out that what has in fact happened is this. We and the Treasury have been working with various overseas Governments to draw up agreements which, as soon as this Bill is passed, can come into effect. In doing this we have had to examine some thousands of persons who come into the various designated groups. Working under subsection (3) of the clause. we are quite happy in regard to the great majority of these; but there are, in practice, to date something under 1 per cent. of cases on which we are in some doubt as to whether the persons concerned do or do not fit into the category.
Noble Lords say, "You should be judges of that"; but I do not believe that that is right. I do not believe it is right for two reasons. The first reason is that I think it appropriate that the Treasury in this sort of thing should act as a watchdog; and the second is that we have the benefit in the Treasury of great experience of things of this kind. After all, to-day they are responsible (if I may put it this way) for the Civil Service here. They have great experience, and we want to be able from time to time to go to them and say, "'What do you think about this or that one?" That is the basic background of why we want this thing to stand unamended. But not only have various Colonial Office officials had experience to-day of the working as I have outlined it, but I have myself in one or two cases had cause to discuss with the Treasury the question of whether in fact a whole group of officials. I people serving overseas—but it might

995
well have been one person—did or did not qualify for inclusion in the designated list. In particular, this referred to certain local recruitment that had taken place in Kenya; certain officers who were locally recruited but, none the less, got inducements. The question was: did they or did they not come into the category of designated people? I had talks with the Treasury and they immediately saw the point and were only too ready to be forthcoming.
I can assure noble Lords who have spoken that we know the spirit in which this matter is going to be operated. It is exactly along the same lines as that operating with the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. And so I feel, if I might put it this way, despite the fact that these noble Lords are taking up cudgels on behalf of the Colonial Office, that we should rather have it as it stands now; and I hope, in the light of what I have said about the practical experience and about its being necessary, that the noble Earl will not feel he need press this matter to a Division.
LORD BURDEN: I do not want to enter into the merits of the Colonial Office and the Treasury, but what I am concerned about is this. As I read the clause and the Amendment I would say that there may be cases where the Treasury, maybe with the consent of the Colonial Office, decline to have a certain post designated to bring it within the scope of this Bill. That may mean that the person concerned will have no right or claim for compensation under one of the other clauses, because the post is not designated. Will the noble Earl tell me, please, in circumstances of that kind what machinery is there or what provision is there for the person concerned, who may have served a considerable time in the post; what right is there of an appeal against the decision of the Treasury?
THE EARL OF PERTH: The noble Lord, Lord Burden, has raised the question of what right of appeal a person would have. But I think the issue here is primarily one of setting out a new agreement. There is no one serving today under the proposed agreements. There will be agreed with the overseas Governments a broad category for which we are prepared to help with compen-
996
sation or inducement allowance, and people either will or will not fall into the category. This is not something which arises from the past; it is something quite new.
LORD BURDEN: That merely emphasises my point. The person concerned, or group concerned, may know that he or they will not be designated. They are to go on in the Service with that hanging over their heads, knowing that they have not been designated, and knowing that if something should happen to them and they should lose their posts, they will have no right for compensation, as the posts are not designated. Can they, when they know they have not been designated, put in an appeal for their case to be reconsidered?
THE EARL OF PERTH: I think that the noble Lord has not got this matter quite right. What happens is this. In the event of a new territory's being about to come to independence, we have the situation in which there will be a public service agreement, and under that public service agreement it will be open to anybody who so wishes to stay on or to leave. At that moment he enjoys his right of compensation or not. Therefore, there is not a question that, because he is not designated, he has no right to compensation. That will remain with him under the public service agreement, which will always have been made with any Government before they reached the stage of independence. This is something new which does not affect rights of compensation.
LORD OGMORE: I see what the noble Earl means, but, with the greatest possible respect, I think he has misread it and that the interpretation of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and myself is the correct one. What I understand the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to be now saying is that the words in this subsection
" no person shall be designated under such an agreement "
relate to a question of time. That is to say, they concern whether any person shall be designated under the agreement at all. No person at all will be designated under the subsection until the Treasury have given their consent. That would be quite a sensible reading of it if there were no subsection (3). That would mean that, once consent by the

997
Treasury has been given to an agreement the question would be largely for the Colonial Office, provided that they kept within certain categories. But the interpretation of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in my view, does not make sense, if subsection (3) is in the Bill, because it says:
" The consent of the Treasury … may be given generally in respect of persons "
or, of course, by implication, it can be given specifically. You cannot get a specific agreement or consent from the Treasury until the persons have been selected. It is quite impossible.
Surely, a specific agreement is: "Here is Mr. Jones, D.Sc., B.A." (or whatever you like) "whom we want for the position of agricultural adviser to Malaya". That is the sort of thing. Well, you cannot in fact gut the consent of the Treasury to the appointment of Dr. Jones until the appointment of Dr. Jones has been approved, as it were, by the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office will have to see Dr. Jones, they will have to look into his credentials, and then they will have to put him forward to the Treasury. That seems to me to be inevitable. I cannot see that the noble Earl's interpretation of this clause is correct, because he is saying that all these words mean is that the agreement does not come into effect and no person shall be selected until they have approved it. I do not know whether I have made myself clear—it is not easy to make oneself clear standing on one's feet in a large and rather empty Chamber—but perhaps the noble Earl has got my point.
THE EARL OF PERTH: May I first finish answering the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, about who would he the court of appeal? In that connection Her Majesty's Government, in the person of the Colonial Office and the Treasury together, would be the ultimate court of appeal. But may I try to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore? Perhaps, again, I did not express myself very well, since there is some clear measure of misunderstanding. What happens is that, under Clause 1 (3), the Treasury may give consent to a designation generally. Now let us take the case of Mr. Jones, who is to be an agricultural expert for a particular territory. Under subsection (3), there is no need for the Colonial Office, when it comes to the question of
998
Mr. Jones, to go to the Treasury and say, "Do you agree that Mr. Jones may be included? "We know perfectly well that he is in the general designation of agricultural officers for a territory, so we do not have to go specifically in each case under subsection (3) of Clause 1.
LORD OGMORE: But that is only a gentleman's agreement: it is not in the Bill. They can force you to do it. Suppose you get a rather sticky individual in the Treasury. He can force you to go. That is the point that the noble Earl and myself have in mind. You are saying, "We have not got to go". That is only because you and some friend in the Treasury have agreed you will not, but it is not in the Bill.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Here we run up against difficulties as to who is the ultimate authority. I was assuring your Lordships that we have had a similar provision in every single Colonial Development and Welfare Act in the last years, and we have had no difficulty about it. Indeed, we welcome the method of working by which any scheme must have the consent of the Treasury. This is in exactly the same form, and we have already had practical experience of it. As I say, we have drawn up a large number of agreements which are waiting to come into force at the time this Bill becomes law.
In doing this—and the starting of things like this is the difficult time—we ourselves have come up against less than 1 per cent. of people, approximately, as to whom we are not clear whether they should or should not come into the designated categories that we have worked out. It is as to some of those that we may want, if I may put it this way, a. second opinion, and that is how we are going to operate this scheme. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that someone in the Treasury might be difficult. That is always possible; but our experience in the past, and our experience to date, satisfies us that they will continue to work as before. Further, as I say, we, from our point of view, would want to have somebody whom we should consult before making a final judgment, bearing in mind that somebody must have the ultimate responsibility as financial watchdog for the very large amount of money which is being spent.
5.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I must confess that the more the noble Earl talks about this thing the more strange it appears. There is no question of a financial watchdog being needed to say whether Mr. Smith or Mr. Jones is eligible for a certain post; and, if the Colonial Office want some higher authority to which to refer doubtful cases, they could no doubt provide for it without having this clause in the Bill. This is not an optional clause: it is a mandatory clause, giving the Treasury the absolute power of veto over an individual person. It seems to me a similar position would arise in the Armed Services if every selection of major for promotion to lieutenant-colonel, let us say, had to receive Treasury approval; whereas the ordinary method of administration is to lay down conditions and qualifications, and anybody who complies with those is appointed to the post by the Service or other Department. My noble friend Lord Ogmore thought that this was positively insulting to the Colonial Office; but the Colonial Office seem either not to have noticed the insult or, if they have noticed it, rather to like it. I think it is rather poor-spirited of the Colonial Office.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I say something? I do not know whether it will be helpful. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he last spoke, mentioned consultations. That, I think, was his case: that, at present, the Colonial Office consults with the Treasury, and they easily come to some agreement. But there is no question whatsoever of consultation in the Bill as it stands. In fact, if I, looking at it, were asked to say who was the employer, it would seem to me that the Treasury were the employer, in the sense that they are the arbiters of whether the man should be employed and dispatched overseas, and not the Colonial Office. I do not know whether
1000
my noble friend Lord Lucan would accept the suggestion that the noble Earl should look at this to see whether we can take out the words, "except with the consent of the Treasury", and put in some words which are in line with that approach to the case which the noble Earl has made—some such words as: "there shall be consultation between the Colonial Office and the Treasury before these agreements are entered into."
THE EARL OF PERTH: If I may say so, the suggestion of the noble Lord. Lord Shepherd, is in many ways an extremely helpful one. But there must be an ultimate authority: that is the difficulty. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said, "Why should we not have the right to consult or appeal to higher authority?". We do not have that right unless it is so provided. Either somebody is responsible or somebody is not; and here the Bill lays down that it should be the Treasury who, in the last analysis, have the ultimate responsibility. But I assure your Lordships that the spirit of the thing is going to be as I have outlined it, and I hope very much that, having been given the background that I have explained, and knowing the spirit with which it is going to be worked, it will not be felt necessary to pursue the matter any further at this time.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Earl, in his charming way, has done his best to convince us; and, whether or not we are convinced, I do not think it is a subject which deserves pressing to a Division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES (CON FERENCES WITH COMMON WEALTH COUNTRIES AND REPUBLIC OF IRELAND) BILL
5.21 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 St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Diplomatic immunities of Commonwealth representatives attending conferences
1.—
(4) A person who is a member of the official staff of a representative of the government of a country to which this section applies and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and is not a citizen of that country shall not be entitled under the foregoing provisions of this section to any immunity except in respect of things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of his duties, and the name of a person whose immunity is limited by this subsection shall be entered in a separate part of any list compiled by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of this section.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I put this Amendment down because, as your Lordships may remember, on Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, who is in charge of this Bill for the Government, and I were at cross-purposes. I am quite sure that that was my fault and that it arose out of the fact that I did not explain my point clearly enough. But, at all events, as it transpired, we were almost talking about a different clause. Therefore, I thought I had better put any Amendment down to-day so that we can get the thing put on a proper basis.
My point is that, under Clause 4, a person who is a member of an official staff of a Government of a country and conies over here on a delegation, and who happens to be a citizen of the
1002
United Kingdom and Colonies, does not get the full diplomatic privileges which the other members of the same delegation get when they are in this country. If that is so, it seems to me that there is an onus on the Government to show why that is so. Obviously, it puts the unfortunate person concerned into a very difficult position, or it may do, if he finds himself in many ways completely unprotected—not in all ways but in many ways—where his colleagues on the delegation are protected. I have an idea (I may be completely wrong) that when the draftsman was drafting this measure, he was thinking rather of people from this country who go out, let us say, to Australia, or New Zealand, or Canada, and who enter the service of the Government, perhaps, for a short time and come back on a delegation.
Of course, the Commonwealth, as we all know, has expanded tremendously, and the term "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" embraces a vast range of people who have never been in this country at all, and probably never will come to this country unless they happen to come on a delegation. They may be Jamaicans who are in the service of the Government of Nigeria; and it is a fact that a number of West Indians are in the service of Nigeria. They may be Singaporeans in the service of Malaya: and d have no doubt that there are some so employed. They may be people from Hong Kong who are in the service of Malaya. More likely still—this is quite a likely case—there may be a joint delegation from the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, say, on defence, or finance, or on a hundred and one things; and the extraordinary thing about that joint delegation would be that all the Malayans would come under the full protection of this Bill, but the Singaporeans would not. They would not have full protection. They would have some protection, of course, in accordance with their official duties, but they would not have the wider protection which is given by this Bill.
It seems to me that this is a matter which the Government should clear up. We have not yet had an answer to the point which I put, because, as I say, I put it so badly that the noble Lord did not, in fact, reply to it. But I think that this Committee to-day ought to have an answer which goes at least some way

1003
the Government have looked into this position, have it in mind, and are quite sure and can assure us that equity is going to be done. At the moment, as I say, it seems to me that they are laying up for themselves possibly a good deal of trouble. I can just imagine some of the things that would happen if this clause were to go through as it is at present drawn. However, I do not wish to make heavy weather of it. It will not affect a great many people, but it might affect the sort of person whose case would be very highly publicised if anything went wrong. In any case, I think we shall all agree that justice ought to be done. Therefore, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Ogmore.)
LORD CONESFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, always speaks very persuasively, and I differ from him always with reluctance. Nevertheless, I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will not accept this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, talked of the injustice that might be done to the man who does not enjoy full diplomatic immunity. But what I desire the Committee to bear in mind is the injustice that is often done to a person who has a claim against the person who claims diplomatic immunity. For that reason, it has hitherto been the common policy of every political Party in this country, I think, to restrict diplomatic immunity, so far as it can be properly restricted, having regard to the comity of nations and considerations of that kind. The person who the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, fears will not enjoy complete diplomatic immunity will, under the Bill as it stands, enjoy immunity as regards things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of his duties. Surely it is not wrong that a person who has our nationality should, in our own country, be liable to the ordinary processes of the law as regards acts which have nothing to do with his official duties.
If I may mention a case in which I was concerned when I was practising at the Bar, a case very many years ago (I shall not mention the nationality con-
1004
cerned), I remember an appalling injury, for which there was no redress, inflicted on a British midwife who had given services in this country to the household of a man who successfully claimed diplomatic immunity when called upon to pay the bill. It was quite impossible to get payment for that poor woman. That was an inevitable result that can be worked by diplomatic immunity. I do beg every member of the Committee to realise that when we are talking about conferring diplomatic immunity, we should not only bear in mind those on whom diplomatic immunity is conferred but also bear in mind the position of people who may have claims against them. By reason of their diplomatic immunity, nothing can be done to help the injured party.
I am not putting that forward as an argument against what is proposed in this Bill. What is proposed in this Bill enables diplomatic immunity to be conferred, in accordance with considerations which we can all understand, on the visiting representatives of other countries, but when one of the staff concerned is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, I say that no unnecessary restriction is placed on his diplomatic immunity if that immunity is confined to things done or things omitted in the course of that person's official duties. For these reasons, I very much hope that in the interests of, among other things, the liberalism which the noble Lord now professes, the Government will resist this Amendment.
5.32 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: First of all, I must deny the "soft self-impeachment" of the noble Lord in suggesting that it was entirely his own fault that we misunderstood each other the other day. He was good enough to tell me before the Committee that part of our misunderstanding was cleared up in the letter which I addressed to him yesterday, and we are now discussing what remains. As the noble Lord has reminded us, in the course of the Second Reading debate both the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Silkin, expressed concern over this qualification, affecting citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are not also citizens of the country represented.
There is more than one reason, more reasons even than those mentioned by my

1005
noble friend Lord Conesford, in favour of retaining subsection (4) in Clause 1. First of all, this subsection embodies longstanding and, I think I can say, universal practice in these matters. It has never been our custom to confer such immunity on our own citizens, and International Law places no obligation on us to do so. This is a widely recognised principle. It has been recognised, for example, in the text of a draft Convention on Diplomatic Intercourse which will be discussed at a conference in Vienna next month. The relative draft article states that a diplomatic agent who is a national of the State in which he is serving shall enjoy inviolability and immunity from jurisdiction in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions.
Secondly, our domestic legislation is to the same effect. The Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1952, which was mentioned last week and which confers immunity upon Commonwealth High Commissioners and their staffs, contains a similar provision and a similar limitation exists in the case of the staffs of foreign envoys to this country. Section 2 of the Diplomatic Immunities Restriction Act, 1955, which I did not mention on the last occasion, was passed with this very object. It provides that a United Kingdom citizen shall not be entitled to "personal immunities", which are defined as
"Immunity from suit and legal process (except in respect of things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of official duties) and inviolability of residence."
I do not wish to—and, indeed, I could not—ignore the persuasiveness; of some of the noble Lord's arguments. He had in mind the case of a citizen of the United Kingdom or Colonies, normally resident in a Colony, or perhaps in this country, who is appointed to the staff of a delegation from an independent country—in this case an independent Commonwealth country. This can, and, as the noble Lord said, does happen. But how are we to distinguish between such people and other citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies? So far as I know, the noble Lord made no suggestion as to how we could distinguish between those who live here and those who live abroad. Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, wherever
1006
they live, have a common status, a common status which carries considerable advantages with it.
Let us take the case of a United Kingdom citizen who is not a citizen of the country represented and who is resident in this country, and who would also therefore he covered. This is not the type of person whom the noble Lord has in mind, but under the Amendment which he has moved, he would be included. This sort of person has obligations which have no connection whatever with his official duties. He pays taxes and he is liable to suit or prosecution for any acts lie may commit—let us say, acts which affect the interests of his permanent neighbours. I cannot see any justification for saying that such a person should not be liable to taxation on his income, and that the normal remedies of law should not be available to anyone who suffers by reason of acts having no connection at all with the conference.
In these circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it would be wrong to enlarge the degree of immunity in order to avoid an expression which in practice has never caused any trouble. In fact, it would run counter to the desires expressed on both sides of the House—particularly, I may say, on the other side of the House—before and ever since the passing of the Diplomatic Immunities Restriction Act., 1955, and, moreover, would be likely to cause the sort of resentment referred to by my noble friend Lord Conesford. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord that, although I see the point of his; argument, the Amendment: he has moved would not help the Bill and would be unworkable.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the care which he has taken in his reply, and I think that the Committee will be satisfied that we now have had the Government's view, which we had not had before, on this case, on which I think he would agree difficulty may arise in future. I suspect strongly that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, had not given this subject the care and attention which he normally gives to subjects before he expresses himself on them. Whether liberal or otherwise, I am against any undue extension of diplomatic privileges—indeed, we all are. I

1007
am not dealing with the wider question which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, introduced to-day, but with the Amendment now before the Committee. I should have been prepared to go into the wider question, but I did not think that it was in order.
As Lord St. Oswald has so rightly said, in this country we are in a different position from other countries. Most other countries have a metropolitan area and not much else; but we have 30 million people in overseas Britain, who have to be treated as people of this country under the law, because legally we are all considered as one, though in practice we are very different people. It would be a matter of considerable surprise if a man who normally resided in Sarawak were told on a visit to this country that he was treated in exactly the same way as a man normally resident in Swindon. When we are dealing with this question, this is the dilemma which arises and it is apparent here. On weighing up one thing and another, I am bound to say that in the present circumstances the Government have the better case. I do not feel that my case is so strong that I can ask your Lordships to divide, but I hope that the noble Lord will agree that there is a case, even if it is a weaker case, on the other side. I hope that it will never be found that the Government are in any embarrassment because of the sort of circumstances to which I have been alluding. After that exposition by the noble Lord, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: May I intervene before that Question is put? I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that I gave this the best consideration I could, and I am still of exactly the same opinion. The fallacy of his original speech, and of the speech he has just delivered, is the fallacy that somebody suffers an appalling injury by being subject to English law; and it comes somewhat curiously from a noble Lord in his profession. Speaking as a member of the Bar, I differ from him entirely. The British citizen in this country suffers no possible outrage by being subject to
1008
English law. If he is given complete immunity as regards any act or omissions of which he may be guilty in the service of the delegation of which he is for the time being a member, he suffers no disability for which we need sympathise. On the other hand, if the noble Lord's Amendment had been adopted, everybody whom he might injure while in this country would have suffered the outrageous injury of being injured by another British citizen against whom he would have no redress.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.