HL Deb 21 February 1961 vol 228 cc946-69

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)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to implement an undertaking I gave in Committee on the Amendment then moved by the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, and withdrawn by him.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 BRECONmoved, 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 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 BRECONmoved, 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 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 BRECONmoved, 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 BURDENmoved, in subsection (1), after the first word "shop" to insert "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 BRECONmoved, 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 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 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 BRECONmoved 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 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 BRECONmoved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert instead: (1) Where plans—

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

  1. (a) that a person is suffering from tuberculosis of the respiratory tract and is in an infectious state, and
  2. (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
  3. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.