HL Deb 21 February 1961 vol 228 cc976-90

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 BRECONmoved 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 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 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 BRECONmoved 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 of1937]:

4.20 p.m.

LORD HAWKEmoved, 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 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 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- 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 BRECONmoved, 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—

  1. (a) with the consent of the person by whom the information was furnished: or
  2. (b) in connection with the execution of the Act of 1937 or this Part of this Act; or
  3. (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 CHORLEYhad 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 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 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 BURDENmoved, 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 BURDENmoved, 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.

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 BRECONmoved, 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- 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.