PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 24 January 1961 vol 227 cc1107-84

2.58 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 Brecon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Construction]:

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON)

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, which is a Government Amendment. Clause 1 of the Bill emphasises the continuity of public health legislation by indicating the links between this Bill and earlier Statutes. Parts II, III and V of the Bill, dealing with sanitation and buildings, with the prevention, notification of disease and with trade effluents, are to be construed as one with provision of earlier Public Health Acts on the same subjects. Parts IV and VI of the Bill, although they contain clauses on matters touched on in previous Public Health Acts, are not so closely associated with public health legislation. For this reason they are not integrated with the Public Health Act, 1936, but have applied to them only those sections of that Act as are set out in the table which forms part of subsection (4) of Clause 1.

The purpose of this Amendment is to add Section 341 of the Public Health Act, 1936, to that table and to the sections of that Act which apply to Parts IV and VI of the Bill. As this section already applies to other parts, the effect is that, with the rest of those listed in the table, it will apply to all the operative provi- sions of the Bill. Section 341 of the Public Health Act, 1936, provides that the provisions of that Act—and of this Bill if the Amendment is accepted—shall apply to Crown property if the authority in charge of that property agrees. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 15, at end insert— ("341 Power to apply provisions of Act to Crown property").—(Lord Brecon.)

On Question Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to

Clauses 2 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Advertisement of proposal to relax building regulations]:

THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGHmoved in subsection (1), after "publish" to insert "at the expense of the applicant". The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to enable a local authority to recover the cost of advertising the application of an applicant who wishes to obtain a relaxation of the bylaws to his benefit. It may be said that the cost would not be high, but in these days the cost of advertising in two or three papers may well amount to not less than five or ten guineas per application, and in a year when these national regulations are more known about and applicants are familiar with the procedure it is thought that the cost may easily amount to £100 or more. It is for that reason that the local authority association of which I have the honour to be a member suggest that this Amendment might be considered by Her Majesty's Government.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 28, after "publish" insert "at the expense of the applicant".—(The Earl of Gainsborough.)

LORD SILKIN

I have no objection in principle to this Amendment, but I can conceive cases where it would not be proper to charge the cost of advertising to the applicant. The application may be a perfectly reasonable and proper one, and it may be in the interests of the general public that there should be a relaxation of the by-laws. I fail to see why there should be an absolute rule that in all cases the cost should fall on the applicant. If the mover of the Amendment were willing, I should be perfectly prepared to accept that there should be a discretion on the part of the local authority to recoup the costs of advertising in proper cases, but my own view is that we should not go beyond that and make it an absolute provision.

LORD DERWENT

While I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin has said. I wonder whether if a discretion were given to the local authority, they would ever find against themselves.

THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH

In spite of what the noble Lord who spoke last has said, as a member of a local authority I know that in fact discretion is exercised on many occasions, and I think there would be little objection, if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to consider the Amendment, to its being drafted in those terms. I should be glad to hear the noble Lord's comments.

LORD BRECON

I think I had better explain that at present Section 63 of the Public Health Act, 1936, leaves it wholly to the local authority to decide whether to apply for the Minister's consent to a relaxation, and no expenses of advertising are incurred until the local authority have applied for his consent. The section does not require the developer to reimburse the local authority for the expenses of advertisement. Perhaps that was because the expenses could be incurred only as the result of a positive initiative taken by the local authority themselves.

The Bill repeals Section 63, and under Clause 6 it will in future be for the developer to set the wheels in motion by applying to the local authority if he thinks there are grounds for a relaxation in a particular case. This may lead to expenses on advertisement being incurred under Clause 8 without the local authority having taken the initiative, and in these changed circumstances it seems reasonable that these expenses should fall on the developer. It is, after all, the developer who will benefit if the requirements of the building regulations are eventually relaxed in his favour.

Having heard what has been said, I think I can say that the Government find the Amendment acceptable in principle. After what other noble Lords have said, I am prepared to have another look at it, if the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, is willing to withdraw it now, to see whether we can find suitable words to meet his views and those of other noble Lords.

THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH

I am much obliged, and in view of what the noble Lord has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Minor Amendments]:

LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out five weeks "and insert "two months". The noble Lord said: Subsection (2) of Clause 10 provides that there shall be an overall period of at least five weeks in which a local authority must come to a decision on the passing or rejecting of plans. Under the earlier Act the period was four weeks. The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the period of five weeks to two months, and the reason for that is that in the majority of cases where plans are submitted on building by-laws simultaneous application is made for planning approval under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Under this Act a period of two months is prescribed for the rejection or approval of the application, and I suggest that it would be both sensible and realistic to make the periods the same for both statutory codes.

In addition to the conformity this would bring to the methods of dealing with the two types of application which must be made jointly, the Amendment would enable local authorities dealing with applications for the approval of plans tinder the building regulations to give some complicated applications really proper scrutiny. Straightforward applications would be dealt with in the usual way as a simple application for planning permission and in such cases no additional delay need be expected. The overall effect of the Amendment would be to remove what appears to many lay members of the public an anomaly for which no reasonable explanation can be given. I trust that the Government will take a favourable view of the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 39, leave out ("five weeks") and insert ("two months").—(Lord Amulree.)

LORD BRECON

I appreciate very much what the noble Lord seeks to do by this Amendment, but Section 64 (4) of the Public Health Act, 1936, provides that the prescribed statutory period within which local authorities are required to give notice of the passing or rejection of building by-law plans shall he one month, with a possible extension to five weeks in the case of plans submitted less than three days before the meeting of an authority that meets only once a month. Clause 10 (2) is to be read with the repeal, effected by Clause 79 (3) and Part I of the Fourth Schedule, of Section 64 (4). The effect is to prescribe a maximum period of five weeks in every case.

The reason for this change is a technical one. Variations in the prescribed period are acceptable when they are expressly incorporated in building bylaws made locally by the local authorities concerned, but it would not be admissible for the prescribed period within which action must be taken under centrally made regulations to vary in accordance with the changing administrative practice of local authorities. The solution adopted in the Bill is to specify a period of five weeks as the maximum in all cases, since it would not, of course, be practicable to require local authorities to meet oftener than once a month.

The Amendment seeks to extend the period to eight weeks in all cases. The Minister has no evidence that the present four-week period (five weeks in some cases) has caused any general difficulty, although it may well be that when complicated and detailed calculations of steel or ferro-concrete work, for example, have to be checked there may be some difficulty in getting the work done in time in local authority offices. A general extension to eight weeks would, on the other hand, inevitably have some tendency to slow down the rate at which architects, engineers and builders could get going on the site. This would be a substantial disadvantage and would need very careful consideration. The scope of those provisions of the Bill relating to building control is limited to the replacement of building by-laws by building regulations, alterations in the relaxation procedure and amendments directly consequential thereon. The extension of the period to five weeks in all cases is, as already explained, a necessary technical consequential of the replacement of by-laws by regulations. To go further and to substitute a period of eight weeks would, quite apart from the practical difficulties that might be caused, be amending the present system of building control in a matter falling outside the restricted objectives of the building provisions of the Bill. For those reasons, I am afraid that the Government are unable to accept this Amendment.

LORD AMULREE

I should like to thank the noble Lord for his full reply to my Amendment. I quite appreciate the point of view of the Government, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

3.12 p.m.

LORD BRECON moved, after Clause 11 to insert the following new clause:

Contribution to cost of sewering highway

"—(1) Where a local authority—

1. (a) resolve to construct a sewer in a street or part of a street which is a highway maintainable at the public expense, and
2. (b) include in the resolution a declaration that the construction of the sewer will, in the opinion of the local authority, increase the value of premises fronting the street or that part of the street,

the provisions of this section shall have effect as respects the recovery by the local authority of payments from the owners of those premises in respect of the construction of the sewer.

(2) A notice of any such resolution shall be published by the local authority in a local newspaper circulating in their district; and the resolution shall come into operation for the purposes of this section on the date of the publication.

(3) This section shall not authorise the recovery of any payment in respect of any sewer if the construction of the sewer is not complete at the expiration of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the resolution concerning the sewer comes into operation.

(4) This section shall not apply to any street or part of a street if at any time before the construction of the sewer there was in that street or part of a street a public sewer into which foul water could he discharged by virtue of section thirty-four of the Public Health Act, 1936 (which relates to the connection of premises with public sewers).

(5) Subject to the provisions of this section, a payment shall be recoverable in respect of any premises fronting the street or part of the street in which the sewer is constructed—

1. (a) if a building is erected on those premises after the date on which the resolution comes into operation, and
2. (b) if that building is connected with the sewer for the purpose of discharging foul water.

(6) Subject to the provisions of this section, the amount of the payment in respect of any premises shall be one-half of —

1. (a) the actual cost per yard of the sewer constructed in the street or part of the street, or
2. (b) the estimated cost per yard of a sewer having an internal diameter of nine inches constructed in the street or part of the street at a depth of seven feet.

whichever is the less, multiplied by the extent in yards of the frontage to the street or part of the street of those premises.

(7) If a payment has become recoverable under this section by reference to any length of frontage, no further payment shall be recoverable by reference to that length of frontage.

(8) The local authority may, on the application of the owner of any premises in respect of which a payment is recoverable under this section, remit any part of that payment on the ground that by reason of the extent of the frontage of those premises the amount of the payment is disproportionate to the benefit received by those premises from the construction of the sewer; and if the owner if dissatisfied with the decision of the local authority upon his application, or if the local authority do not within one month of his application give him notice of their decision, he may appeal to a magistrates' court, and that court may direct that any part of the payment be remitted on the said ground.

(9) Where any part of a payment has been remitted under the last foregoing subsection in respect of any premises, subsection (7) of this section shall not apply, but any further payment which may be recoverable by reference to the frontage of those premises shall not exceed the amount remitted, and, for the purposes of this subsection, that amount shall be treated as distributed proportionately over the length of that frontage.

(10) This section shall apply to a sewer whether or not the sewer is constructed in the district of the local authority, but shall not authorise the recovery of any payment in respect of any premises situated outside that district.

(11) If a local authority have entered into any agreement (whether before or after the date on which this section comes into force) for the construction of a sewer for the benefit of any premises, this section shall have effect as respects the recovery of any payment in respect of those premises subject to the terms of that agreement.

(12) The provisions of the Schedule (Supplementary provisions concerning sewerage contributions) to this Act shall have effect in relation to this section"

The noble Lord said: This proposed new clause and the two which follow, together with the new Schedule, are linked, and it would perhaps be for the convenience of your Lordships that we should consider them together. They appear to be both complicated and obscure, but the main principles are neither. As with the case of other clauses in the Bill, they are well precedented. Some 300 authorities have powers on the lines of the first new clause (which deals with sewers laid in streets which are repairable at public expense) and nearly 400 have powers on the lines of the second new clause (which deals with sewers laid across land which is later made into a street).

The background to the clauses is this. Under Section 14 of the Public Health Act, 1936, each local authority is under an obligation to provide such public sewers as are needed for the effectual drainage of its district. This duty is related to the existing buildings—the local authority has no duty to lay sewers in anticipation of future development. When an authority lays a sewer, therefore, for the benefit of new development, it usually does so by arrangement with the developer who pays a contribution towards the cost. Contributions may be recovered by the local authority in another type of case also. If the council lays a sewer in a private street which is being made up, the properties fronting on that street may be required to contribute, under provisions affecting private street works which go back to the Public Health Act, 1848, and which are now incorporated in the Highways Act, 1959.

It is not unreasonable that contributions should be obtained in these circumstances. Once a public sewer is available property owners will have the right to connect their premises without charge. Alternative ways of drainage—by cesspool, for instance—will become unnecessary and property values will be increased. But there are other circumstances in which these benefits are reaped by property owners without any obligation to contribute towards the cost of the sewer. No contributions cart he recovered under the general law as it now stands in connection with sewers laid in a street which is a highway maintainable at the public expense or across land which although later made into a street, is not a street at the time the sewer is constructed.

It was to remove this anomalous situation that certain clauses were first incorporated in the Romford Urban District Council Act, 1931. I believe that Romford is now a borough council. The originators of these clauses have achieved a kind of immortality because, in Private Bill circles, these clauses are habitually referred to as "the Romford clauses", though they do not appear in the Model Clauses Handbook in exactly the form in which they first appeared in 1931. Criticisms of the clauses as they first appeared led to their examination by a Joint Committee of the two Houses which sat under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, the late Lord Onslow. Their Report was published in 1936 under the somewhat forbidding title of The Report of the Joint Committee on Public Sewers (Contributions by Frontagers).

That Committee were satisfied that it was reasonable to expect contributions from those who would benefit from the laying of a sewer by a local authority, but went on to say that it was almost impossible to frame a code which would satisfactorily reconcile all interests. They thought that rough justice would have to be the aim. They did not draft clauses to replace the then existing provisions, but laid down certain principles which they thought should be followed. Only three of these need be mentioned here. They suggested, first, that the basis of the apportionment on each frontager should be the extent of his frontage on the highway; secondly, that the cost to be apportioned should not exceed the average cost per lineal yard in the district of providing sewers in private streets, and thirdly, that payments should be recovered only when land is actually developed so that no contributions would be required from the owners of existing buildings. These principles were embodied in subsequent versions of the Romford clauses and on the basis of the new clauses now under discussion, though these clauses have been re-worded to meet the needs of general legislation.

The first new clause—that is, contributions to cost of sewering a highway—deals with the position where a local authority proposes to lay a sewer in a public high-way. It outlines the circumstances in which the recovery provisions are to apply, how the payments are to be calculated and the procedure for recovering them. It will be seen that the provisions dealing with the recovery of contributions apply only where the local authority considers that the construction of the sewer will increase the value of properties and specifically resolves to apply the provision. The sewer must then be laid within two years of the resolution, otherwise no contributions will be payable. Payments are recoverable only as and when new development takes place. Owners of existing buildings will still be able to ask the local authority to remit part of the amount claimed on the ground that it is disproportionate to the benefit he receives; in default of agreement with the local authority he may then appeal to the local magistrates' court. Subsection (6) of this new clause deals with the amount which the property can be called upon to pay. It will be seen that the amount is to be calculated by reference to the lesser of two amounts: that is to say, the actual cost per yard of the sewer laid by the authority, and the estimated cast per yard of a 9-in. sewer at a depth of 7 ft. in the street concerned. This subsection is slightly different from the model clause on this particular aspect, but it will probably not be thought desirable to elaborate on the difference at this stage or to explain the further details contained in the proposed new Schedule. The Schedule provides a right of appeal against the council's assessment of these amounts.

The second new clause applies very similar provisions to the case where a local authority has constructed a sewer in land which subsequently becomes a street. Again the local authority must pass a resolution declaring that the construction of the sewer has enhanced the value of land fronting the street. The recovery provisions of the first clause will then apply and there will be the same rights of appeal both against the local authority's assessments of cost and against their refusal to remit part of the amount otherwise payable as and when frontages are developed.

Finally there is the third new clause. For purposes of general legislation this has been based more on Section 209 of the Highways Act, 1959, than on the model clause, but the aim is identical: to prevent property owners from avoiding the payment of a contribution by selling a narrow strip of frontage. The clause empowers a magistrates' court to make an order where it is satisfied that this manœuvre has been carried out in order to evade liability. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 11 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Brecon.)

LORD SILKIN

I find myself in some difficulty about this new clause, as I imagine will many other noble Lords in the Committee. My difficulty is that I saw this new clause for the first time only last night. It may be my fault. I do not know when it was circulated, but I have been abroad and came back only last night in time for to-day's sitting. While I have no objection in principle to the three new clauses on the Marshalled List, I have considerable apprehensions about the details and should have liked to consider putting down a number of Amendments to them. Perhaps the most satisfactory course would have been for these clauses to be recommitted so as to make it possible to put down Amendments to them. I am not very familiar with the procedure, but I am sure that that would have been more satisfactory to the Committe, than having to deal with them to-day in a very broad way.

Having said that, I should like now to outline some of the difficulties that I see on a first reading of the new clauses. The first is that everything turns on the declaration by the local authority that in their opinion the value of the premises forming the street, or that part of the street on which it is proposed to provide a sewer, will be enhanced. That is purely a matter of opinion and valuation. In most cases the local authority, naturally, will take the view that the sewer would enhance the value of the property, although that is not necessarily the case. It may be that many properties are to-day functioning quite happily with cesspools, their occupants being almost unaware of the existence of the cesspools. I myself live in such a house in the country, and I have no inconvenience from it. I have not even the knowledge that there is a cesspool there unless I go and look at it.

For all practical purposes, I cannot believe that if a sewer were provided where I am now living in the country—and this position applies to many other people—it would to any extent enhance the value of my premises. I do not believe that it would, but I can quite understand a local authority thinking that it would, and taking action on that basis. There is, of course, no appeal against that decision. I speak subject to correction: it may be that somewhere, tucked away under some provision of the 1936 Act, which I have not been able to study, there is some provision for an appeal. But I doubt it. The local authority have merely to pass a resolution that the value of a person's property will be enhanced by the provision of this sewer and thereupon, automatically, the owner of the property is called upon to make a contribution. I feel that there ought to be some provision by which an owner can challenge the decision of the local authority, the ipse dixit that his property will be enhanced by the provision of the sewer. Moreover, there is nothing in the Bill which deals with the extent of the enhancement. Supposing the value of the property is enhanced by £100 but the cost which is to be levied on the owner will be £500 (I take hypothetical figures), would it not be unreasonable to expect the owner to pay that amount, or even one-half of it, as the Bill provides? These are points which I am sure, merit further consideration in this new clause.

There is one other point. I found the noble Lord's explanation of the Bill a little difficult. That was not his fault, because it is a complicated subject; but I understood him to say that this did not apply to existing property. If he will look at the beginning of the first new clause he will see that it appears implicit that the premises are not in existence because the local authority have to: include in the resolution a declaration that the construction of the sewer will, in the opinion of the local authority, increase the value of premises fronting the street or that part of the street, Thereupon they are entitled to make a levy. But if the provision does not apply to existing premises how is it possible for a local authority to make a levy based on the frontage, as the clause later provides? Moreover, subsection (8) of the new clause provides that the local authority may remit any part of the amount simply "by reason of the extent of the frontage" of the premises. I find it a little difficult to make out what that means. Would that apply because there is a big frontage, or because there is a small one? On what grounds would the local authority have power to remit the charge against the owner of the premises who, according to the statement of the noble Lord in explaining the Bill, is not going to be liable at all?

I do not want to weary the Committee by going through this clause, which is a very long one; and the same applies to the next two clauses. If the noble Lord could devise some machinery by which we could discuss these clauses and put down Amendments to them, not on the Report stage but in some other way, I believe that would be generally more convenient to the Committee than merely trying to discuss these provisions to-day and passing them, leaving Amendments to be put down at the Report stage.

3.27 p.m.

LORD MESTON

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, whether he can give any indication of the cost per yard of making a sewer? I ask that question advisedly, because Parliament passes these Acts of Parliament while having no conception of the terrific burden that is being cast upon owners and occupiers of property. Take, for example, the cost of making up of streets under the Codes of 1892 or 1875, as contained in Part IX of the Highways Act, 1959. That may be £5 per foot. I know of somebody living near me who is faced with a probable bill of £400. I know somebody in Marlow—and I expect all your Lordships know beautiful Marlow—who is faced with a bill of £1,200 in respect of making up the street in front of his property. I understand that the laying of a sewer is an improvement and not a repair. Someone told me that one could get round the difficulty by calling it "rehabilitation", but I am not sure whether the Inland Revenue accept that term. As this is an improvement and not a repair, I presume that one can make no claim for relief under Schedule A in respect of the cost of laying a sewer fronting one's premises. While your Lordships' House has no concern with financial matters, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, if he would consult his right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point and ascertain whether any kind of relief can be given to owners of property who have to pay what undoubtedly will be a very heavy charge.

EARL WINTERTON

I find myself in considerable sympathy with the noble Lord on the front Opposition Bench, who, incidentally, is a neighbour of mine. I am in the same position as him, with this exception: that as my house does not front a main road I shall not come under the clause. And, like him, I have my own arrangements for dealing with sewage. I think he has raised, as the noble Lord sitting on this side of the House has, a very important point. I hope that it will not be considered outside the ambit of this Amendment if I say (and I think that probably my view is shared by other noble Lords) that I am always hesitant about legislation which places greater powers in the hands of local authorities, for this reason. Without saying anything against rural district councils, for example, the fact is that they are burdened with an amount of authority over the general public which they have not the expert knowledge for their clerk properly to exercise. Every Bill increases their powers. I would ask that full consideration should be given to the points raised by the two noble Lords.

LORD BRECON

I should like to explain that these new clauses were available before Christmas. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that they are difficult clauses, and I am sorry that they were not included in the Bill originally. But there were particular reasons why my right honourable friend was unable to put them in at that time.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Lord says that they were available and I would not dispute it. But available to whom, and how?

LORD BRECON

They were in the Printed Paper Office.

LORD SILKIN

They certainly were not available to me before I left this country on, I think, January 6. I found them when I got back. I daresay that other noble Lords were in the same position—we take holidays sometimes. They were certainly not available to me before that date.

LORD BRECON

I understand that they were available in the Printed Paper Office before Christmas. I agree that people go away, but that does not help us in our position here at the moment. However, I think it can be regarded that if a sewer is put into a particular area it increases the value of the property. One may argue about how much that value may be. Like the noble Lord, I have a cesspool which I never have to worry about at all; and I believe that cesspools are extremely good under certain conditions. On the other hand, I think one must admit that if a sewer is put in there is an increase in the value of the property.

A NOBLE LORD

Not if it is rent-restricted.

LORD BRECON

It may be restricted; it may be restricted in that way. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked about the existing property. No charge can be made upon existing property; it is only new buildings that are affected. The difficulty is that very often sewers are put across fields to a new development where an agreement is made with a new developer to share the cost of the sewer. Somebody develops that line of sewer because it is there, and starts to build houses on either side and makes the site into a street. I think it is fair and proper that he should pay some reasonable cost for that development. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the cost per yard. I understand that if one digs to lay a drain 7 feet deep and puts in a 9-inch pipe it will cost between 20s. and 30s. per foot, say £3 a yard. So on a 30-foot frontage the cost would be £30. If houses are built on either side that cost is divided between the two houses, aid it would work out at approximately £1,5 a house, which I think is a reasonable sum to pay to have a sewer in the road immediately outside one's new building; and it is certainly much cheaper than having to build a septic tank.

I think there are safeguards so that there can be appeals against the local authority. I said that the recovery provisions of the first clause will apply, and there will be the same rights of appeal both against local authorities' assessments of costs and against their refusal to admit part of the amount otherwise payable. I hope that the Committee will accept these clauses. If there are particular points that noble Lords would like me to look at for the Report stage, I shall be happy to do so.

THE MARQUESS OF AILSA

I wonder whether the noble Lord who is speaking for the Government could satisfy me on one point. I am faced with the situation that a sewer is to be driven through a private street which I own, in front of existing houses that have been erected, to connect with development. Under this clause would those people whose houses are at present there be liable to pay a contribution towards that sewer or would it be done only in an area of development?

LORD BRECON

It is difficult to give a quick answer to a particular case like this, but if the noble Marquess will let me have the details I will certainly look into the matter and let him have an answer. I should not like to give one "off the cuff".

LORD SILKIN

I should like to return to procedure. I feel, in all the circumstances, that the Committee ought to have an opportunity of having a Committee stage on these clauses, which really constitute a fundamental alteration or, rather, an extension of the Bill. I think it is just not good enough to pass these clauses and to rely upon the opportunity of putting clown Amendments on the Report stage. If these clauses had been in the original Bill, of course we could have considered them carefully and put down our Amendments. We have been deprived of that opportunity. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would sympathetically consider it. I do not know whether the Lord Chairman could help us on this point, but I am sure that there is some machinery by which we could have a Committee stage on these new clauses. That is what I ask the noble Lord to arrange for, if it is within the Order of Procedure of this House.

LORD KILLEARN

I do not often intrude on matters of this kind, but it happens that like many other noble Lords, I have an interest in this particular question, and I should like warmly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just asked for. Many of us would have to look at this matter with some care, including myself.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Perhaps it would be convenient if I said at this stage that after the Committee stage it is possible for a Bill to be re-committed or, in the alternative, it is possible for a group of clauses to be re-committed. It is not, of course, for me to say whether that procedure should be adopted or otherwise. I am merely informing the House that it is possible for that to be done.

LORD SILKIN

I am sure that the Committee will be most grateful for that statement; it is very helpful. If the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, could give us an assurance that these particular clauses, and any other new clauses that are controversial, will be re-committed, speaking for myself I should be quite prepared to let them go at this stage.

LORD BRECON

I shall be quite happy to suggest that these matters are considered through the usual channels. But I should like to point out that this particular clause was published on December 20. However, perhaps in the meantime if I give an undertaking that I shall ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to have the usual consultations to see whether some such arrangement can be arrived at, that will be satisfactory.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BRECON

I beg to move the second new clause.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:

Contribution to cost of sewer in land subsequently laid out as street

(".—(1) Where a local authority—

1. (a) have, after the commencement of this Act, constructed a sewer in any land which has after the construction of the sewer been laid out as a street or as part of a street, and
2. (b) pass a resolution declaring that the construction of the sewer has, in the opinion of the local authority, increased the value 1124 of premises fronting the street or that part of the street,

the provisions of subsections (5) to (9) of the last foregoing section shall have effect as respects the recovery by the local authority of payments from the owners of those premises in respect of the construction of the sewer.

(2) A notice of any such resolution shall be published by the local authority in a local newspaper circulating in their district: and the resolution shall come into operation for the purposes of this section on the date of publication.

(3) Where compensation due to the owner of any land under section two hundred and seventy-eight of the Public Health Act. 1936, in respect of damage sustained by reason of the construction therein of the sewer has been diminished by setting off any sum on account of the enhancement in value of the land by reason aforesaid, no payment shall be recoverable by virtue of this section in respect of any premises forming part of that land.

(4) Subsections (10), (11) and (12) of the last foregoing section shall apply to this section.")—(Lord Brecon.)

LORD HAWKE

May I ask the noble Lord in the Chair at what stage a Motion for the recommittal of these two new clauses has to be moved?

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

In my opinion, not to-day. The procedure, I think, is that the Committee stage to-day proceeds in the normal way. At a later stage, a Motion may be moved in your Lordships' House, that either the whole Bill or one or more clauses be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

LORD SILKIN

May I ask, to clarify the point, whether such a Motion can be moved by any Member of the House?

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Yes.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BRECON

I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:

Evasion of liability to contribute under two last foregoing sections

(".—(1) If on a complaint by a local authority it is shown to the satisfaction of a magistrates' court—

1. (a) that any premises which do not front a street or part of a street have by reason of any transfer of land been severed from any other premises which do so front (whether at the time of the transfer or subsequently), and
1125
2. (b) that but for the transfer a payment under either of the two last foregoing sections would be recoverable in respect of the premises so severed, and
3. (c) that the transfer was intended for the purposes of evading liability to make any such payment,

the court may make an order under this section.

(2) An order under this section may direct that the premises so severed shall be deemed for the purposes of those sections to have a frontage to the street or part of the street of such extent in yards as may be specified in the order.

(3) In this section "transfer" includes any disposal of land whether by way of sale lease, exchange, gift or otherwise; and references to premises and to fronting shall be construed in the same manner as in the two last foregoing sections.")—(Lord Brecon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12:

Recovery of cost of maintaining public sewers

12. In the proviso to subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Public Health Act, 1936 (under which a local authority must. unless in their opinion immediate action is necessary, to give seven days' notice of any work for the maintenance of a sewer which is chargeable to owners of premises served by the sewer), for the words unless in the opinion of the local authority immediate action is necessary, they there shall he substituted the words unless the medical officer of health or public health inspector certifies in writing to the local authority that immediate action is necessary, the local authority".

3.42 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved, in the new words proposed to be inserted to omit "to the local authority". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This Amendment and others in ray name have been put down after a detailed consideration of the Bill by the Association of Public Health Inspectors. In addition, the Association of Municipal Corporations, with the exception of one Amendment, support those which I have put down.

Dealing with the first Amendment, Section 24 of the Public Health Act, 1936, empowers a local authority who have carried out maintenance work on certain lengths of sewer to recover the cost of this work from the owners of the premises served by the sewer. They are, however, required to give the owners seven days' notice of their inten- tion to carry out the work, to quote the words of the 1936 Act, unless in the opinion of the local authority immediate action is necessary". Clause 12 of this Bill, however, proposes to substitute the following: unless the medical officer of health or public health inspector certifies…to the local authority that immediate action is necessary, the local authority", and so on. Undoubtedly, this Amendment to Section 24 of the Public Health Act, 1936, is designed to expedite the execution of urgent works which are necessary and to do away with the necessity for a meeting of the local authority or, if power has been delegated to a committee (say the public health committee), for a meeting of that committee. I take it that that is the intention of the clause, and I think the Minister will agree.

However, there is some doubt as to whether the words as they stand in this Bill might be held to imply that a meeting of the local authority or committee with delegated powers will still be necessary before action can be taken: and it is with the object of clearing up that point, so that, when necessary, immediate action can be taken without having to wait for a meeting of the local authority or committee, that I have put down this Amendment. I know that it is probably somewhat daring to challenge the wording of Parliamentary draftsmen, hut, as a layman looking at the clause as it stands, I must say that doubt exists in my mind. I should be quite happy if the Minister can give us an assurance either that my interpretation or reading is incorrect, or, if he feels that there is some doubt, that the matter will be looked at again. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, line 36, leave out from ("writing") to ("that").—(Lord Burden.)

LORD BRECON

I think that if I read what I have here it will give the answer to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has raised. It says that this clause is based on model Clause No. 43, which dispenses with the need to give seven days' notice of the work proposed to be done where in the opinion of the medical officer of health or the public health inspector immediate action is necessary. When the Bill was being drafted, it seemed desirable to ensure that this opinion of the medical officer or of the public health inspector should be put into some permanent form, so that it would be available as a record in case of future dispute —

LORD BURDEN

That I can see.

LORD BRECON

—as the cost of the works in these cases may be recovered by the local authority from the owners of the properties served by the sewers which have been repaired. For this reason, Clause 12 in the Bill requires the medical officer or the public health inspector to certify in writing that immediate action is necessary, and the certificate is to be to the local authority, because the only effect of the certificate is to alter the local authority's powers; but this does not mean that action has to wait until the council or committee next meet. Once the certificate has been made and handed to the town clerk or clerk of the council, the requirements of the clause will have been met. Without this certificate they would be able to recover the cost only if advance notice had been given to the property owners under Section 24 of the Public Health Act, 1936. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD BURDEN

If the Minister's advisers are quite clear that the legal interpretation is that delivery of a certificate on the lines suggested to the town clerk, or to whoever might be the appropriate officer, will be taken as advising the local authority, then I am quite happy in regard to the matter, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14:

Summary power to remedy stopped-up

drains

14.—(I) If it appears to the medical officer of health or public health inspector that on any premises a drain, private sewer, water-closet or soil pipe is stopped up, he may by notice in writing require the owner or occupier of the premises to remedy the defect within forty-eight hours from the service of the notice.

3.49 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "forty-eight" and insert "twenty-four". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. It will be seen that my Amendment seeks to substitute twenty-four hours for forty-eight hours as the period from the service of a notice requiring an owner or occupier to remedy a drain, private sewer, water-closet or soil pipes which are stopped up. I will make two points in connection with this Amendment. The first is that some local authorities have already embodied in local Acts the period of twenty-four hours as that within which action must be taken. The second point is that a period of forty-eight hours is too long when one takes into account the fact that a drain, et cetera, may have been stopped up for some time before it came under the notice of the medical officer of health or the public health inspector. My information is that local authorities who have power to take action after twenty-four hours have in practice found no difficulty at all arising from that period. A longer period seems, in those circumstances, to be a danger to public health, and I suggest that for other sanitary reasons 24 hours might reasonably be adopted as the national standard, seeing the manner in which progressive local authorities have led the way in adopting the 24 hours' period. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 5, leave out ("forty-eight") and insert ("twenty-four").—(Lord Burden.)

LORD DYNEVOR

May I say one word on this proposed Amendment? The noble Lord, Lord Burden, proposes his Amendments with such a benevolent air that one hardly likes to question anything he says, but in these days it is often not possible for a private owner to get anybody on a Saturday or a Sunday. We are finding, that the five-day week is being widely introduced, and 48 hours, I should have thought, should be the period stipulated in the Bill. It must be recognised that a stopped-up drain should be remedied as quickly as possible; nevertheless, with the best will in the world, if the drain becomes stopped up at the week-end, it may not be possible to remedy it within 24 hours.

LORD BURDEN

May I answer the noble Lord on that point, after thanking him for his kindly reference? Local authorities are obviously aware of difficulties of that kind, and they are not so overbearing as to want people to go out on a Sunday, let alone the sacred Saturday. In those circumstances, I am sure there is no real difficulty in mind.

LORD SILKIN

I also think that 24 hours is quite unreasonable—I might as well say it about this provision, because I am going to say it later on. The mere fact that it is included in certain Private Bill legislation does not convince me at all. A good many things have slipped through of which I myself would not approve. I think that 24 hours is quite unreasonable, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor. If you are going to confer power upon a local authority to take action in default at the expiration of 24 hours, you might as well give them the power to do the job straight away. There is very little one can do within 24 hours. If, as the noble Lord has said, you cannot get a workman, there is nothing very much you can do, especially at week-ends. I think the Bill is better left as it is.

LORD BRECON

The object of Clause 14 is to provide a more expeditious procedure than that already contained in the Public Health Act, 1936, for dealing with cases where a drain, private sewer, water closet or soil pipe is stopped up and urgent action is called for. The clause enables the medical officer of health or the public health inspector to serve a notice on the owner or occupier of the premises requiring him to remedy the defect within 48 hours. If the notice is not complied with, the local authority will themselves be able, under subsection (2) of the clause, to do the necessary work and recover their reasonable expenses. The point at issue is whether the owner or occupier should have as long as 48 hours or whether he should be required to remedy the defect within 24 hours.

This clause is based on model clause No. 46, which allows the owner or occupier 48 hours, and most local Act precedents allow this period rather than 24 hours. It seems unreasonable to prescribe the shorter period because, in effect, it means that the owner or occupier who receives a notice from the local authority must get a builder to come and carry out the necessary works that very day. It is very difficult indeed to believe that this will always be practicable, but it is not unreasonable to expect the owner or occupier to be able to find someone by the following day. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will withdraw his Amendment and allow the 48 hours' period to stand.

LORD BURDEN

It is difficult for me to oppose my noble friend Lord Silkin, but I may have to oppose him a little later on, so I am glad he has set the precedent in opposing me this afternoon. Be that as it may, I can see the point so far as shortage of labour is concerned; I can see the point so far as country districts are concerned; but, of course, there is the problem of the towns. However, as the model clause has been quoted, and as the Minister is not prepared to accept my Amendment, I have no alternative, having ventilated what is the considered view of the people concerned, to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

Power to repair drains and private sewers

15.—(1) If it appears to a local authority that a drain or private sewer—

1. (a) is not sufficiently maintained and kept in good repair, and
2. (b) can be sufficiently repaired at a cost not exceeding fifty pounds,

the local authority may, after giving not less than seven days' notice to the person or persons concerned, cause the drain or sewer to be repaired, and, subject to the next following subsection, recover the expenses reasonably incurred in so doing, so far as they do not exceed fifty pounds, from the person or pee-sons concerned, in such proportions, if there is more than one such person, as the surveyor may determine:

3.58 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection, (1) after "surveyor" to insert "or public health inspector". The noble Lord said: My reason for moving this Amendment is that the public health inspector is frequently concerned with drainage work, and he should therefore be authorised to stipulate the point where drains should be disconnected. Of course, local authorities generally delegate powers to a committee. Many councils have delegated powers to the public health committee, and when this Bill becomes an Act they will undoubtedly delegate powers to their public health committee.

Taking the dictionary definition of a "surveyor", one might argue that the public health inspector comes within that definition, as he, in the nature of things, would be surveying if the work were allocated to him by his Committee. But the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, will appreciate, and knows as well as I do, that in local government nomenclature a surveyor usually has the connotation "borough engineer and surveyor"; therefore, I cannot depend on the dictionary definition of the word "surveyor". I would respectfully submit that when work has been carried out under the direction of one department—say, the public health department—under the direction and supervision of a public health inspector, it is fair and reasonable that the department should apportion the expenses. There may be instances where, on the initiative of the public health department, the borough engineer carries out the work, and in those circumstances there would obviously be every reason for him to apportion the expenses incurred.

Let me say, here and now, that, so far as the public health inspectors are concerned—and here I apologise to my noble friend Lord Silkin—they have carried out this work where certain powers have been given to local authorities under local Acts. I am sure my noble friend is conversant with the long and detailed training which public health inspectors undergo in the work of the Public Health Examinations Board. They are fully competent to carry out this work. Moreover, the Amendment has the support of the Association of Municipal Corporations who, I need hardly say, are fully conversant with the detailed work of local authorities.

Is it really necessary to put councils in such leading strings and determine by Act of Parliament what particular department should do what is, after all, a matter of routine business? Surely local authorities, so far as their organisation is concerned, must have power to function in what they deem to be the best possible way. In this Amendment I submit no exclusive claim for the public health inspector. Both officers may have a part to play. And if the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, feels difficulty in regard to this Amendment, why not leave it to the local authority to determine? Why not let the local authority make their choice of whether it be the public health inspector or the borough surveyor? I should be quite happy. I make no claim for prior treatment for one or the other. I would not do that, because many borough engineers are close personal friends of mine, and I know their worth. I should be the last to say anything derogatory about their services. But surely, when a particular branch of local government service has undergone long and expensive training and are conversant with what is involved, it is quite wrong to shut them out from doing this work, if the council should desire them to do so. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, line 3, after ("surveyor") insert ("or public health inspector").—(Lord Burden.)

LORD SILKIN

This is not an important Amendment and I do not mind very much if the noble Lord feels inclined to accept it. I should, however, like to point out what my noble friend is asking for. This clause provides that a person in the employ of a local authority should have power to apportion expenses as between one owner and another. That is clearly the function of a surveyor. In my view, it is not within the normal competence of a public health inspector. It involves some knowledge of the cost of providing services, land values and so on, which one would expect a surveyor to have, though not a public health inspector. While I have no objection to having these words in, I think it makes nonsense to require a public health inspector to survey as to the apportionment of charges between one owner and another in respect of any work done by a local authority. Incidentally, the same would apply to my noble friend's next Amendment. I think that in both cases it is quite inappropriate to add the public health inspector. We might just as well add the officer in charge of lunacy, because neither of them would necessarily have any particular knowledge of values.

LORD BURDEN

All I can say to my noble friend is that my experience of local government has been quite as extensive as his, and from my experience I think that it is nonsensical and a bit of lunacy to ask a department to come in and assess work when they have no experience, in any shape or form, of how it has been carried out and would have to go to another department to get all the details. What officer can determine the cost of anything when presented with a completed job? When the work has been carried out under the supervision of one department, they know all that is involved and then it is purely a matter of arithmetic, which does not require a master of lunacy to do: even an office boy could do it.

THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH

I do not want to enter into the private argument between noble Lords on my left.

LORD SILKIN

As a matter of correction, it is not a private argument; it is a public one.

THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I want only to say that some local authorities would much prefer that officers were not mentioned, but simply the local authority, because they are the body who have to decide in the end.

LORD BURDEN

May say that I have already indicated that I should be quite happy with a solution of that kind? Let the local authorities determine between my noble friend Lord Silkin and myself as to the officer who would be appropriate to carry out this work. Surely we can trust our local authorities to do their work efficiently without an Act of Parliament to say that Mr. A, and not Mr. B or Mr. C, is to do the job.

LORD BRECON

Perhaps what I have to say will bring agreement to the public disagreement on the other side of the Committee. Clause 15, to which this particular Amendment relates, is designed to supplement Section 39 of the Public Health Act, 1936. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, is the first of a number of Amendments much on the same lines, and perhaps he will bear that in mind while I am giving this reply. The clause enables a local authority to carry out comparatively small jobs of repair work on a defective drain or private sewer and recover the cost without going through the rather elaborate procedure of the Public Health Act, 1936. Where more than one person is concerned, the clause provides that the cost can be recovered from them in such proportions as the surveyor may determine. The noble Lord's Amendment would enable the apportionment to be made by either the surveyor or the public health inspector.

Parliament has always been reluctant in the past to confer powers or place responsibilities upon individual officers of local authorities, on the general grounds that so far as possible the responsibility for any action which is the concern of the authority ought to rest with the elected body itself The Government support that principle and the consequence that follows from it—that individual officers should not be placed in a special statutory position unless there are urgent and inescapable reasons for giving powers to them and not to the authority.

The noble Lord's Amendments to Clauses 15, 16, 23, 26, 31 and 35 all involve a consideration of this principle and the Government feel that there are other clauses in the Bill where the same issue arises and which ought perhaps to be reconsidered in the light of his proposals. In these circumstances, may I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Burden, would withdraw those Amendments for the time being? If he can agree to do so, then the Government would undertake to examine all those provisions in the Bill which seek to confer powers on named officers, to ensure that all those provisions are necessary and that the right officers have been named.

The Government fully recognise the importance of the work of the public health inspectors and the contribution which they have to make to efficient local government, but it does not follow that they, or, for that matter, any other local authority officer, should be charged with responsibilities that ought properly to rest with the elected local authority. This is an important question, which needs to be gone into with some care, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will feel able to withdraw his Amendment for the moment to enable further consideration to be given to it.

LORD BURDEN

I am obliged and indebted to the noble Lord for that statement. In my closing remarks I indicated that I should be happy if there could be a reconsideration of the point. The noble Lord has given a substantial reason for a re-examination of the matter, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall be agreed to?

LORD BURDEN

I should like to put two points to the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, on the Question that this clause stand part. As I read it, the clause gives power to recover the cost where the estimated cost does not exceed £50. It may be that, after the work has been started, unforeseen snags crop up which it would cost more than £50 to rectify. Do I take it that, if that should happen, all that the local authority could recover would be the £50? The second point is this. If there are urgent works which ought to be carried out that would cost over £50, do I take it that the local authority would have power to proceed under Section 39 of the Public Health Act, 1936? I ought to have given the noble Lord notice of these questions, and as he probably has not the answers available now, I should be obliged if he would let me know in regard to them at some later stage.

LORD BRECON

I shall be pleased to let the noble Lord have answers to the questions he has raised on this clause.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Disconnection of drains

16.— (l) Where any person—

(a) reconstructs in the same or a new position a drain which communicates with a sewer or another drain, or

he shall cause any drains or parts of drains thereby becoming disused or unnecessary to be disconnected and sealed at such points as the surveyor may reasonably require.

(5) This section shall not apply in relation to anything done in the course of the demolition of a building, or of an external part of a building.

4.13 p.m.

LORD BROUGHSHANE moved to add to subsection (1): on or within the boundaries of the premises served thereby.

The noble Lord said: the object of this Amendment is to ensure that no one may be required, for the purpose of sealing all the drains in the circumstances detailed in the clause, to do any work outside the boundaries of his own property. This is in accordance with model clause No. 48 on which this clause is based. With regard to subsection (2) of the clause, it does seem that in certain circumstances the surveyor may still require that a street be broken open outside the boundaries of the owner's property for the purpose of sealing off a drain. This might well involve an owner in heavy expense and he would have no appeal against the surveyor's requirements: indeed, he would incur a penalty in the event of non-compliance. If it be suggested that in some cases it might be difficult to seal off a drain elsewhere than outside the boundaries of a property, it should be said that there is no provision for this in model clause, No. 48, which, so far as I know, has worked satisfactorily and has given rise to no practical difficulties. I beg to move.

LORD HAWKE

Before the noble Lord sits down, could he tell us what model clause No. 48 is?

LORD BROUGHSHANE

I am afraid I have not got it with me.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, line 3, after ("require") insert the said words.—(.Lord Broughshane.)

LORD BRECON

I have not the model clauses here, nor have I had time to look them up. So far as this Amendment is concerned, the object of this clause is to prevent disused and abandoned drains from becoming prejudicial to health. It requires the person who carried out work which results in a drain being put out of use to disconnect and to seal up any disused drain or portion of a drain at such points as the local authority surveyor may reasonably require. The model clause (No. 48) on which this clause is based says that the drain shall be disconnected and sealed at such points on or within the boundaries of the premises served as the surveyor may reasonably require, and the noble Lord seeks to have these words inserted in the Bill. Their purpose is to prevent an owner from being placed under an obligation to carry out works on another person's land, where he may be a trespasser.

The clause of the Bill, as drafted, makes a slight variation in the model clause, though without departing from the intention of the words the noble Lord has in mind. The clause does not require the point of disconnection to be on the owner's own premises; there may be a much more suitable place further along the line of the pipe. If a dead end of a drain is not to become a breeding ground for rats, then it should be sealed off at the point where it joins the sewer from which the rats might otherwise gain access. Subsection (2), however, which the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, would omit, says that no one shall be required to carry out any work in land outside the premises served by the drain if he has no right to carry out that work. If the best point for this purpose is outside the premises, and if the owner has the right to do the work there, it seems desirable that the drain should be disconnected and sealed there. It is suggested that the Bill achieves the object of the precedents in a more satisfactory way.

I would add that subsection (2) contemplates that a property owner might be required to break open streets in order to seal a disused drain at the point where it connects to the sewer. This could be more expensive than carrying out work within the curtilage of his own land, but the point might be made here that when a property is first connected to the sewer the cost of the work falls on the owner, so prima facie it is not unreasonable that the cost of disconnection should fall on the owner also. For the reasons I have given, I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment.

LORD BROUGHSHANE

While thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him if he would consider whether some words might be incorporated so as not to put the owner at the mercy, so to speak, of the surveyor, and that any reconnection should be by agreement between the surveyor and the owner

LORD BRECON

I will certainly give that consideration before the Report stage.

LORD BROUGHSHANE

I thank the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.20 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, has an Amendment down to this subsection, and if my interpretation of it is correct it will not be necessary for me to press my Amendment. The noble Lord's Amendment refers to Clause 26 and, as I understand the matter, in regard to this topic of an dis-used drain action cannot be taken under this clause—that is, Clause 26—if the cubic capacity of the building or part of the building demolished is less than 1,750 cubic feet. On the other hand, if there should be a disused drain in a building or part of a building demolished less than 1,750 cubic feet, then action can be taken under Clause 16. I must admit: that it was somewhat difficult to get to that conclusion. The noble Lord's Amendment, if I may say so, is a subtle one; but if my interpretation is correct—and I hope and believe it is—then I shall have pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, line 20, leave out subsection (5). —(Lord Burden.)

LORD BRECON

I must ask for help on this matter. I was rather hoping that the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment and let me put mine.

LORD BURDEN

I will do so, of course, if my interpretation is correct.

LORD BRECON

The noble Lord's interpretation is correct.

LORD BURDEN

Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BRECON moved, in subsection (5), to leave out from third "of" to the end of the subsection and insert: part of a building, being a demolition as respects which the local authority has power under section twenty-six of this Act to serve a notice on the person undertaking the demolition". The noble Lord said: The subsection affected by this Amendment is one designed to keep two clauses of the Bill in step. Clause 16 enables a local authority's surveyor to require a person who is reconstructing a drain, or carrying out work which will result in its being disconnected, to seal up any drain which as a result is put permanently out of use. The purpose of this power is to prevent a disused drain from becoming a danger to public health. This could happen if, for instance, the dead end of a disused drain is allowed to become a breeding ground for rats.

The other clause concerned is Clause 26 which deals with the demolition of properties and the need to make sure that when a property is demolished proper steps are taken to seal off any water pipes, drains or sewers, to weatherproof any exposed part of an adjoining building and to clear the rubble from the site. Local authorities are given power to require, among other things, that drains which become disused because of demolition work shall be properly sealed off, and clearly there could be a slight degree of overlap between the two clauses.

Subsection (5) of Clause 16 removes this overlap by ensuring that where drains have to be sealed up as a result of demolition work any notice on the subject shall be given under Clause 26 and not under Clause 16. This is logical because the demolition may require other consequential work—the sealing of water pipes, for instance—and the same notice should deal with all of them. But not all demolition work is caught by Clause 26. Subsection (2) of that clause exempts certain minor demolition works —demolition work undertaken as part of an internal conversion, for instance, and the demolition of small buildings, sheds and greenhouses. For this reason, it is not sufficient to exempt all demolition work from the operation of Clause 16; it is necessary to exempt only those demolition works which can be covered by Clause 26, and the purpose of the Amendment is to clarify this point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, line 21, leave out from third ("of") to end of line 22 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Brecon.)

LORD BURDEN

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Am I still correct in saying that under Clause 16, which deals with the demolition of premises of under 1,750 cubic feet, if there should be a disused drain that ought to be stopped then that drain could be stopped?

LORD BRECON

Yes.

LORD BURDEN

The noble Lord mentioned rats. He will be aware that the public health inspector is the person who has to deal with the rodent pest.

LORD BRECON

Yes.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18:

Closet accommodation for separate dwellings

18.—(1) In subsection (1) of section forty-four of the Public Health Act. 1936 (paragraph (a) of which relates to the sufficiency of closet accommodation in buildings), after the said paragraph (a) there shall be added the following paragraph— (aa) that any part of a building, being a part which is occupied as a separate dwelling, is without sufficient closet accommodation; or

(2) Among the grounds on which an appeal may be brought under subsection (3) of section two hundred and ninety of the said Act against a notice under the said subsection (1) as amended by this section shall be—

1. (a) that the need for the works to be executed under the notice would not, in whole or in part, arise but for the occupation of part of the building as a separate dwelling, and that the occupation of that part as a separate dwelling is a matter in respect of which the appellant has a cause of action, and
2. (b) that the person against whom the appellant has a cause of action ought to contribute towards the expenses of executing the works.

(3) Where the grounds on which an appeal under the said section two hundred and ninety is brought include the ground specified in subsection (2) of this section, the appellant shall serve a copy of his notice of appeal on the person or persons referred to in that ground of appeal, and on the hearing of the appeal the court may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the contribution to be made by any such person towards the cost of the works, or as to the proportion in which any expenses which may be recoverable by the local authority are to be borne by the appellant and any such other person."

LORD BROUGHSHANE moved to insert after "accommodation" in paragraph (aa): Provided that, for the purposes of this paragraph, where any such part of a building has been let for occupation as a separate dwelling without the consent of the owner of the building the person so letting that part of the building shall be deemed to be the owner for the purposes of this section.

The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to this Amendment, and also to the consequential Amendment, No. 18. This Amendment is put forward for the purpose of safeguarding an owner of property who might otherwise find himself obliged to provide what is referred to by the draftsman delicately as "closet accommodation", which I understand to mean a W.C., merely because, without the owner's consent, a part of his property has been sub-get. Subsection (2) of this clause recognises that some provision should be made to protect an owner whose tenant has, without his consent, sub-let part of his house, but I submit that a right of appeal is inadequate and inappropriate protection in these circumstances. The owner would have to go before the court to prove that the responsibility was not his, and in order successfully to prove this he would have to show that his tenant's lease specifically prohibited sub-letting. If the terms of the lease were silent as regards sub-letting he would have no remedy at all.

Further, I suggest that it is desirable that the courts should not be burdened with appeals when, if this Amendment is effected, it would merely be for the sanitary inspector to ascertain whether the owner's consent has been obtained to the sub-letting. In recent years this point has been argued before Select Committees of Parliament and a clause, amended as I have proposed in my Amendment, was inserted in the Cheshire County Council Bill of 1953 and in the Wallasey Corporation Bill of 1957/58. Since then the same proviso has been inserted, to the best of my knowledge, in every Private Act in which a clause similar to Clause 18 has appeared—that is to say, once in 1959, in the Bootle Corporation Act, and in no fewer than four Private Acts in 1960, in the case of the Corporations of Bournemouth, Croydon, Oldham and Southend-on-Sea. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 11, line 17, after ("accommodation") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Broughshane.)

LORD SILKIN

I am bound to say that on first reading of this Amendment I did not like it, because I think it imposes an unreasonable burden upon the local authority of having to make a decision, which is not always easy, as to whether a particular letting was effected with the consent of the owner or not. I think a local authority is a singularly inappropriate and unsuitable body to make such a decision, and particularly the inspector of health, to whom the noble Lord himself referred. I must say that I am a little shaken by the fact that a similar provision—if it is the case—has been accepted in a substantial number of Private Acts. I said earlier that I did not think that that was a conclusive argument, and that now we were introducing public legislation we were entitled to have another look at these provisions. I still think so. But I must say, in all fairness, that I cannot feel as strongly as I did when I first read this, in view of the fact that so many local authorities already have this provision. I do not like it. I do not think it is the job of the local authority to decide, as between the owner and his tenant, whether permission has been given to sub-let and I think it ought not to be included in the Bill.

LORD BRECON

The proviso which this Amendment seeks to add to subsection (1) of the clause would take the place of subsections (2) and (3) which are proposed to be deleted from the clause by the following Amendment, and the two have therefore to be considered together. The purpose of the clause is to require a local authority, when parts of a building are separately occupied, to consider whether the available closet accommodation is sufficient for each part. This does not mean that there must necessarily be a separate closet for each separate part. The question is whether sufficient accommodation is provided, and this requirement may be met by a shared closet.

The clause is based upon a model clause, and although the words which the Amendment would introduce are not actually in the model clause, they have been added to it in many of the cases where the provision has been included in local Acts. Their purpose is to protect an owner of a property from the risk of having to instal extra water closets purely as a result of unauthorised sub-letting by his tenant. It is not disputed that the owner should be protected against that possibility, and subsections (2) and (3) of the clause have been included for that very purpose. The proviso which has been included in local Acts, however (and which Lord Broughshane's Amendment would substitute for these subsections in this clause) is open to a number of objections.

The first is that it would make the tenant who sub-lets part of a building the owner for the purpose of Section 44 of the Public Health Act, 1936, so that any notice to provide additional closets would be served upon him instead of upon the owner of the building. This would be undesirable, both because the tenant may have no right to carry out the work and because the owner may well object both to the unauthorised sub-letting and to having his property altered. This could operate most unfairly against the owner since, not having been served with a notice, he would have no right to appeal. Indeed he does not even have to be told what is being done. A second objection is that as the proviso is drafted the tenant who is responsible for the sub-letting would be called upon to provide additional closets, if a notice were served by the local authority, even though they might not have been made necessary by the sub-letting. This would be unfair to the tenant. A third objection is that a sub-letting without the owner's consent need not necessarily be unlawful. It would depend upon the circumstances of the case and a tenant may be perfectly entitled to sub-let without the landlord's consent. It would be doubly unfair if a tenant who sub-let in those circumstances should be called upon to provide additional closets, even although it was not the sub-letting by him which had made them necessary.

It was for these reasons that the proviso contained in Lord Broughshane's Amendment was rejected, when the Bill was drafted, in favour of the arrangements set out in subsections (2) and (3) of the clause. Subsection (2) provides that if the inadequacy of the closet accommodation arises from the subletting, and if the owner has a cause of action in respect of the sub-letting, then he may appeal to the magistrates on the grounds that the person against whom he has a cause of action should contribute towards the expense of the works. This will enable the court to look at all the circumstances of the case and make whatever order they think fit. If it is right to do so, the tenant responsible for the sub-letting can be required to pay a substantial contribution towards the cost of the works. It is felt that this is an improvement upon the provision which appears in local Acts and it is recommended that the Amendment be rejected.

LORD BROUGHSHANE

While thanking the noble Lord for his long and detailed reply, it still remains surprising that so many corporations should have found it desirable to include in legislation in very recent years. on no fewer than four occasions in 1960, the proviso contained in my Amendment. However, I should dike an opportunity of studying Hansard and reading what the noble Lord has said, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 [Defective premises]:

LORD BURDEN moved in subsection (1) to leave out "a local authority" and insert "the medical officer of health or public health inspector". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List, and perhaps I might suggest that this Amendment might conceivably, for various reasons I shall indicate, stand outside the general understanding, but if it does not I shall have to accept it. As I read the clause, it is designed to expedite the execution of urgent works, particularly on premises in such a defective state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance. As the clause stands, it provides for a meeting of the local authority or a committee with delegated powers before the notice can be served. I am sure that the noble Lord. Lord Brecon, with his knowledge of local government, will agree with me when I say that frequently, owing to the obligation for a meeting, appreciable delays could easily occur, with, I take it, consequential danger to public health. For example, many councils and their committees do not meet during the month of August and part of September. Again, if a public health committee has no delegated powers the matter would have to stand over to a meeting of the local authority.

I think these cases of urgency could be looked at as exceptional, seeing that there are precedents for it; and this Bill in Clause 14 mentions the public health inspector and medical officer of health. This is not moved in any hostile spirit at all but only, rightly or wrongly, to give effect to what I think is the intention of the clause, namely, to expedite the execution of urgent work. But again, if the view of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is that consideration of these terms should stand over to the general consideration, I shall accept it. On the other hand, I think there are these exceptional cases where an individual or individuals as designated should have power to act in the public interest. But again I am in the hands of the Minister. I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 14, line 40, leave out ("a local authority") and insert ("the medical officer of health or public health inspector").—(Lord Burden.)

LORD BRECON

I can give the assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Burden that what we discussed in an earlier clause relating to the naming of particular officers will be considered for the whole of the Bill. In this particular case he is asking for a change from the word "local authority" to "medical officer of health or public health inspector". Here, again, it may be better if power is given to the local authority and the local authority itself delegates its powers to its individual officers, so that if the council go away on holiday in August and the officers do not go at the same time something will be done. But in the context of what the noble Lord says, all that will be considered in relation to the naming of the officers

LORD BURDEN

I thank the noble Lord, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 [Ruinous and dilapidated buildings and neglected sites]:

4.40 p.m.

> LORD BURDEN

This Amendment seeks to ensure that the sites of demolished buildings which have been cleared shall be kept clear and not, as quite frequently happens, be allowed to develop into an eyesore or a danger to public health. I am sure that it is within the knowledge of everybody that cleared sites may easily become the dumping ground for old bedsteads, and even mattresses: all sorts of things are dumped on these cleared sites by people who want to get rid of this material. While I believe that there is power under the Public Health Act to call upon the owner to remove rubbish or material which could be deemed to be a danger to public health, there is nothing other than that power; and I doubt whether it could be said that an old bedstead is a danger to public health, however unsightly it may be. I am sure that the Government and the Minister have looked at this point, but I shall be glad to hear what they have to say about it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 16, line 42 after ("material") insert ("and for maintaining the size or land free of rubbish and material").—(Lord Burden.)

LORD BRECON

Again, Clause 24 is based on model clause No. 56, and its aim is Ito enable local authorities to take action when local amenities are injured either by the dilapidated state of a building or by the untidy nature of a site after a building has been demolished or has collapsed. It provides a rather more direct procedure for tackling this kind of problem than is contained in Section 58 of the Public Health Act, 1936. But essentially it contemplates a single operation.

Under subsection (1), if a building is dilapidated it must be restored or, alternatively, it must be demolished and the site cleared. Under subsection (2), with which alone Lord Burden's Amendment is concerned, a neglected site must be cleared. His Amendment is aimed at a different problem: how to keep an empty plot of land tidy after it has been cleared and how to prevent people from dumping rubbish—old bedsteads and other things—on it. No one denies that this presents difficulties, but it is a problem which applies equally where action is taken under subsection (1) of this clause and a building is demolished. Nor, so far as the Department are aware, is there any local Act precedent for anything on the lines of Lord Burden's Amendment. The problem is a general one, applying to all empty sites, and is, indeed, tackled as a general problem under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Section 33 of that Act deals with gardens, vacant sites and other open land the condition of which is seriously injurious to local amenities. Under that section the local planning authority may serve on the owner or occupier of the land a notice requiring him to take such steps as are needed to remedy the state of affairs complained of. Once land is cleared as a result of action under this clause, these powers in the Town and Country Planning Act are available to keep them clear. I hope that, after the reasons I have given, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD BURDEN

I understand from the Minister that there are really two strings to the bow. Speaking from my own experience, under the Public Health Act, where anything is injurious to public health the local authority can order the owner to remove it from the site. The second point is that if the rubble or the rubbish accumulated is a danger to the amenities there can then be brought into action the appropriate section of the Town and Country Planning Act.

LORD BRECON

That is so.

LORD BURDEN

With those two strings to the bow and having received that elucidation, I have pleasure in asking the Committee for permission to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall be agreed to?

LORD SHEPHERD

May I ask the Minister a question? Under this clause the local authority may instruct and require an owner to demolish a building. As the noble Lord may be aware, some old buildings have cellars. In one or two parts of the country I have seen places where houses have been demolished but the cellars have remained and constitute a danger, particularly to children playing in the area. Am I right in understanding that when an owner is required to demolish a building he must demolish it and put the site into such a state that nothing remains of the building or of its foundations, so that there is no danger, either of children falling into cellars, or of the accumulation of rubbish? I do not know whether the noble Lord can help me on that matter.

LORD BRECON

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd for drawing my attention to that. I cannot give him an answer to the point now, but I will look into it and perhaps advise him on it. But it seems to me that if the local authority are to serve a notice on someone to demolish a building where there is a cellar, then perhaps they ought to put into that notice the condition that the cellar is filled up. But I will let the noble Lord know.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26:

Powers of local authority in relation to demolitions

26.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority may serve a notice under this section on any person who undertakes the demolition of the whole or of part of a building.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to the demolition—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AILWYN)

I have to point out that Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 must be transposed. I call first Amendment No. 23, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane.

LORD BROUGHSHANE moved to add to subsection (2): (c) of any building or part of a building situate within the curtilage of or used solely in connection with a factory which does not adjoin a street if the building or part (as the case may be) either—

1. (i) is at a distance from the nearest street not less than the maximum height thereof above the level of the ground; or
2. (ii) being at a less distance from the nearest street than as aforesaid is throughout its length or width on the side nearest to that street separated from the street by another building forming part of the factory not proposed to be demolished or taken down of which no part opposite to that side is of a less height than the maximum height above the level of the ground of the building or part proposed to be demolished or taken down."

The noble Lord said: Clause 26 requires notice to be given to a local authority before demolition of a building is carried out, and it empowers the local authority to require the person undertaking the demolition to take action in the various ways detailed in subsection (5). While these requirements are undoubtedly reasonable and proper where the proposed demolition adjoins a public street, I suggest that they may unnecessarily restrict owners of property in the case of a demolition which could cause no interference with the public. The proposed Amendment seeks to exempt from the provisions of the clause buildings which are within the curtilage of, or are used solely in connection with, a factory which does not adjoin a street. Further, such demolition would be exempt under the proposed Amendment only if the distance from the street of the building to be demolished is more than its height, or if it is sheltered from the street by another building, being part of the factory, which is at least the height of the building to be demolished. The field of the proposed Amendment is very restricted, but I submit that without it there would be in many cases unnecessary interference with industry.

There are a number of recent precedents for the exemption sought by this Amendment. The proviso is to be found in three Private Acts passed in 1958— the Acts of Blackpool Corporation, Gloucester Corporation and the Corporation of Wallasey. There were two further Acts in 1959, those relating to Bootle Corporation and Portsmouth Corporation, and as many as four in I960— namely, the Acts of the Corporations of Bournemouth, Oldham, Southampton and Cardiff. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 18, line 39, at end insert the said paragraph. —(Lord Broughshane.)

LORD BRECON

The purpose of this clause is to ensure that, when demolition works take place, the local authority can require that proper steps are taken to shore up and weatherproof adjacent buildings; to disconnect and seal off any water pipes, drains and sewers, and to remove the material and rubbish resulting from the demolition. Subsection (2) exempts certain minor demolitions from the scope of the clause. These exemptions relate to internal walls of buildings which are, and will remain, occupied, and to minor buildings, though these may alternatively be caught under Clause 16 which deals with the disconnection of disused drains. This Amendment seeks to add another category of works to those which are exempt from the operation of Clause 26. Its wording is not easy to understand, but it apparently seeks to exempt factory buildings or buildings used in connection with factories if they are at least as far away from the nearest street as their own height or if they are shielded from the street by another part of the factory.

The noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, will probably recall that art exemption on these lines has appeared in local Acts. This is true, but against this it must be pointed out that not all exemptions and saving clauses written into Private Acts are necessarily suitable for inclusion in general legislation. Very frequently, as the House will know, the promoters of Private Bills include saving clauses as the easiest and cheapest way of meeting objections, and it is difficult for Private Bill Committees to strike out such clauses, even if they disagree with their necessity, because of the requirements of Standing Orders. Once included in a local Act, such exemptions tend to get repeated in later Private Bills. The mere existence of one or even several precedents is not, therefore, a conclusive argument.

There seems to be no guarantee that the sort of demolition work contemplated by the Amendment might not create just the sort of problems with which the clause aims to deal. The demolition of an internal part: of a factory or the internal part of any building connected with a factory could in any case be exempted under subsection (2) (a) of the clause. Subsection (2) (b) also covers small buildings or sheds on industrial as well as domestic property. But what is the case for exempting other buildings? Surely they might be served by water pipes, drains and sewers which would need to be sealed up or removed? The Amendment includes buildings used "in connection with" factories—these could include canteens, wash-houses and lavatories. The mere fact that the building was back from the street by a distance equal to its own height would not prevent this from being the case, nor would it remove the possibility of uncleared rubble being an eyesore.

The exemption speaks only of buildings "within the curtilage of or used…in connection with" factories. But if one departs from the two classes of exemption referred to in subsection (2) —internal works and minor buildings—it is difficult to see reasons for putting industrial buildings in a special position without giving weight to demands which might also be made from other quarters. Commercial properties, offices, transport undertakings, sports clubs and many others might make similar claims. It is submitted that this Amendment seeks to extend an exemption which might have been justified in the special circumstances of particular local Acts, but is quite unsuitable for general extension. For these reasons I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD BROUGHSHANE

While thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I am bound to say I found it difficult to understand why he so easily dismisses the precedents I was able to cite. He says that in certain cases local circumstance may justify what could not be justified in a national context. However, the nine precedents which I cited—I will not repeat them—cover a very large and wide range of the country. I do not feel in a position to press the matter further; and so that I may have an opportunity of studying further what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Cellars and rooms below subsoil, water level]:

LORD BROUGHSHANE moved to add to subsection (8): or in connection with any premises in respect of which a provisional grant of a justices licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises has been made before the construction of the cellar or room is commenced.

The noble Lord said: Clause 27 requires that the consent of the local authority shall be obtained before there is constructed a cellar or room below subsoil water level. The Amendment seeks exemption from the clause for premises in respect of which a provisional grant of a justices' licence has been made before the construction of the cellar has begun. I suggest that is both onerous and unnecessary that there should be an obligation to obtain the consent of the local authority in cases where the justices have already provisionally granted their licence, since such grant includes in all cases, I understand, full approval of all plans of the premises which are to be constructed, including, of course, cellars. Moreover, it is not impossible that the requirements of the local authority and those of the justices might be conflicting.

The exemption which my Amendment seeks does not include exemption for any existing licensed premises but only licensed premises in respect of which a provisional justices' licence has been obtained. I would point out (although I have the impression that this will not carry me very far with the noble Lord who answers for Her Majesty's Government) that there are precedents for this. The precedents for what is contained in my proposed Amendment are contained in existing Private Acts, the Bootle Corporation Act and two Private Acts of last year, the Oldham Corporation Act and the Southend-on-Sea Corporation Act. In those circumstances I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, line 8, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Broughshane.)

LORD BRECON

Exactly what the licensing justices do when they make their examination of the cellars is something of which I am not quite sure at the present moment, and I should certainly require to look at that to see for what reason they make their examination. I believe that the clause really seeks to ensure that no one builds below the normal subsoil water level a cellar in which perhaps people eventually might live in very damp conditions. However, I am prepared to look into this point and to come back to it at the Report stage.

LORD BROUGHSHANE

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. In view of what he says, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BRECON

Subsection (9) provides that rules made under Section 15 (6) of the Land Charges Act, 1925, may deal with the varying and cancelling of matters registered in the register of local land charges in consequence of action under subsection (4) of this clause. On consideration it became apparent that this subsection was unnecessary, since Section 15 (6) of the Land Charges Act, 1925, itself confers power to do all that is needed. This power is already exercised in the rules (Rule 13 of the Local Land Charges Rules, 1934) and to retain this subsection might cast doubt on the scope of the power to make rules conferred by Section 15 (6) of the Act of 1925.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, line 9, leave out subsection (9).—(Lord Brecon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28 [Food storage accommodation in new houses]:

4.58 p.m.

LORD BRECON

This Amendment has the same purpose as a similar Amendment to Clause 30. Both Amendments are drafting, the purpose in each case being to make it clear that the clause applies to plans for the erection of new buildings and not to plans for converting existing ones. The clauses as drafted would have this effect, but it is desirable that there should be no possible grounds for misunderstanding. I beg to move

Amendment moved—

Page 22, line 16, at beginning insert ("for the erection").—(Lord Brecon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

LORD BURDEN

This Amendment, No. 27, and the following Amendment are, of course, linked. I beg to move Amendment No. 27. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, will tell the Committee that the word "suitable" can he interpreted to imply that a larder must be "properly ventilated" and that if it is not a local authority could reject the plans. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that there are foodstuffs that require a properly ventilated larder. But I venture to submit that it is far better to avoid any ambiguity, and in the experience of those responsible for administration it would be helpful to remove any shadow of doubt and thus avoid any trouble arising in the future. They would know what they would have to provide for in the submission of any plans.I beg to move the first Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, line 25, leave out ("and").—(Lord Burden.)

LORD BRECON

Clauses 28 and 29 are concerned with the provision of food storage accommodation in new dwellings and in existing dwellings. In each case the Bill uses the expression "sufficient and suitable" accommodation, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Burden, wishes the Bill to say" sufficient, suitable and properly ventilated "accommodation. The additional words proposed are not really necessary. If the accommodation proposed requires ventilation then it would not be "suitable" unless ventilation was provided. To that extent the reference to ventilation is not needed. Indeed, it might, in some circumstances, be not only unnecessary but also undesirable. A ventilated space may not be the only satisfactory way of providing for food storage, either now or in the future. Supposing, for example that the plans of a house showed that a large built-in refrigerator was to be provided, then clearly it would not fall within the description "properly ventilated", but it might be perfectly suitable. In such circumstances—and other examples might emerge in the future— it would be a positive disadvantage not to have the flexibility which the word "suitable" imports. It is for this reason that I am sorry to say the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

Can the noble Lord help me? So far as the word "suitable" is concerned, does that also include the question of locality where the food is stored—where the pantry is going to be, shall we say, in relation to the coal cellar?

LORD BRECON

It means a position in the house which the local authorities, through their officers, agree is a suitable position.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

I am extremely surprised to hear the noble Lord who is speaking on behalf of the Government say that suitable accommodation for storage of food would be provided solely in a refrigerator. I sincerely hope that that is not the official view, because it is very well known that certain articles of food should not be stored in a refrigerator. Therefore, the provision of the refrigerator is not provision of adequate accommodation for storage of food in general.

LORD BRECON

One may have a cold cupboard. It is not a refrigerator like a deep-freeze. A cold cupboard has a temperature lower than is normal and can be quite satisfactory to keep foods in, as I myself am well aware. But I do not think that at this stage we want to make it more difficult for the local authorities, which themselves must decide upon each particular case as it is presented to them.

LORD BURDEN

As I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, has really given me my case—that the word "suitable", if the circumstances require it, can be interpreted by the local authority as meaning "properly ventilated"—I agree that the words are redundant and I beg leave to withdraw them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29 [Food storage accommodation in existing houses]:

5.7 p.m.

LORD BROUGHSHANE

I beg to move Amendment No. 31. It is put forward to safeguard owners who might find themselves obliged to provide additional food storage accommodation the need for which has arisen merely because part of their property has been let without their consent. The arguments here are precisely the same as those advanced by myself unsuccessfully a few minutes ago in connection with Clause 18. Here, too, the owner has a right of appeal which, as I suggested in the case of Clause 18, seemed to me inappropriate and insufficient protection. However, the only additional argument I can advance in this case, to increase my chances of receiving some sympathy from the noble Lord who replies for Her Majesty's Government, is model clause No. 61, which deals with food storage accommodation. It contains a proviso exactly equivalent to the words of my Amendment. I submit that the model clause should be operated.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, line 37, at end insert— ("Provided that, where a part of a building which is occupied as a separate dwelling has been let for occupation as a separate dwelling without the consent of the owner of the building, the person so letting that part of the building shall be deemed to be the owner.")—(Lord Broughshane.)

LORD BRECON

Clause 29 empowers a local authority to require additional food storage accommodation to be provided by the owner where a house or part of a building occupied as a separate dwelling is not already provided with sufficient and suitable accommodation for that purpose. Subsections (4) and (5) of the clause are on the same lines as subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 18, and they are designed to protect an owner of a property against having to bear the cost of installing additional larders as the result of an unlawful sub-letting by a tenant. They were included in the Bill in preference to the proviso which the Amendment would add to the clause (and which is in the same terms as that which Lord Broughshane's Amendment sought to add to Clause 18) because the proviso was found to be open to a number of objections. In brief, the proviso is not sufficiently precise in its application and could in some circumstances bear unfairly on the owner and in others upon the tenant.

It is felt that subsections (4) and (5) are an improvement upon the proviso suggested, in that they enable a court to look at all the circumstances of the case and order the tenant to contribute towards the cost of installing additional accommodation if it is necessary because of his action in sub-letting and if the sub-letting is a matter in respect of which the owner has a cause of action. It is for these reasons that I am afraid I cannot recommend acceptance of this Amendment.

LORD BROUGHSHANE

Before the noble Lord sits down, could he comment on model clause No. 61, which I understand contains the proviso put forward in my Amendment?

LORD BRECON

I have Clause 61 here, but I should not like to comment on it immediately.

LORD BROUGHSHANE

In begging leave to withdraw my Amendment I would ask my noble friend Lord Brecon to look at model clause No. 61 before Report stage.

LORD BRECON

I will.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30:

Provision of bathrooms

30.—(1) Where plans of a house, or of a building part of which is intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, have been deposited with a local authority in pursuance of building byelaw; or building regulations, and the plans do not show that the proposed house or, as the case may be, the part of the proposed building to be occupied as a separate dwelling will be provided with a bathroom containing a fixed bath, the local authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, reject the plans.

(2) If the local authority reject the plans under this section, the person by whom the plans were deposited may appeal to a magistrates' court, and if the magistrates' court allow the appeal they shall direct the local authority to allow the plans under this section

LORD BRECON

I beg to move this Amendment. Its purpose is similar to that proposed to Clause 28. It seeks to make it clear that this clause deals only with new buildings and not with the conversion of existing buildings.

Amendment moved—

Pape 23, line 24, after ("plans") insert ("for the erection").—(Lord Brecon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.10 p.m.

LORD BRECON moved, in subsection (1), after "containing" to insert "either". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 36, and they should be considered together. Clause 30 deals with new buildings which are dwellings (houses, flats, et cetera) or which consist in part of dwellings (shops with flats overhead, offices with a caretaker's flat, et cetera). It provides that when plans of any such building are submitted to the local authority in accordance with building bylaws or building regulations, the local authority may reject those plans if they do not show that any new house or separate dwelling will be provided with its own bathroom containing a fixed bath. It is very unlikely, in these days, that new houses or flats would be planned without adequate bathroom accommodation. Local authorities are not expected. therefore, to have to use these powers save as a last resort in isolated instances. But the local authority associations have indicated that the power would nevertheless be useful—and, indeed, some 200 local authorities have it already.

This Amendment, and the other to which it is linked, would modify Clause 30 as it now appears in the Bill by allowing a shower bath as an alternative to a fixed bath. If these Amendments are accepted, local authorities would be entitled to refuse plans only if the proposed new dwelling would not have either a fixed bath or a shower: it would be open to the developer to decide which he wants. This modification of the clause is also precedented in local Acts, even though it is not in the model clause. In the Minister's view, it is right that the provision, when extended to all local authorities, should include the alternative.

This Amendment provides an opportunity to draw attention to the fact that the power now being extended to all local authorities is discretionary. The clause says that the council "may" reject plans if the dwelling will not contain a bathroom with a bath or shower: it does not say that the local authority "shall" reject the plans in all such cases. This is an important point, as there are a number of instances—for example, the blocks of flatlets which are specially designed to make life easy for the less active old people—where it is preferable for some sharing of bathrooms which could be kept clean by the warden. For this reason, the Minister is anxious that local authorities should exercise the powers of the clause in a flexible way. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 30, after ("containing") insert ("either").—(Lord Brecon.)

LORD SHEPHERD

I feel rather guilty that I have not done much homework during the Recess. I understand that this clause, which has just been amended by the previous Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, relates only to new houses. Am I correct in that?

LORD BRECON

Yes.

LORD SHEPHERD

And it does not make any provision in regard to houses that are being converted, or which to-day have not got baths, that the authorities shall direct that baths be provided. I believe that is the case.

LORD BRECON

Yes.

LORD SHEPHERD

It seems rather strange that in Clause 28 we require that houses which are being converted shall have suitable accommodation for food storage, and yet, when we come down to bathrooms, which are becoming an essential part of our life, the Government are not giving power to local authorities to say that if a house has not got a bath the owner must provide one. I do not know whether there is any other legislation which gives authorities power to direct an owner to provide a bath. I do not know whether the noble Lord could help me there.

LORD BRECON

At the present moment, it is only when plans are submitted that authorities may insist upon a bathroom or a shower being installed. If the conversion of a house is taking place, I should imagine that the local authority, when the plans for conversion are being presented, will see to it that a bathroom is provided: but I should very much like to look into this, matter a little more closely and report at a later stage.

LORD SHEPHERD

I should have thought that the clause as it stands in the Bill, where it refers to the plans of a house or a building, would have given such power to authorities in regard to conversion and rebuilding; but because of a previous Amendment moved by the noble Lord, which I did not resist (because I did not appreciate the point), find it now refers only to new buildings. I would therefore submit that the clause has been changed radically by the insertion of the words "for the erection". I should be grateful if the noble Lord would look into this matter, because I think it is very important.

LORD BRECON

I will.

LORD TEVIOT

I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Brecon a simple question, really for information. We all know of certain terrible tragedies concerning the electric supply for lighting or heating in bathrooms becoming detached and putting a current into the water in the bath. We know of people who have suffered death through that. I can remember one occasion where the family of a Member of your Lordships' House suffered in this way. I should like to know whether my noble friend could give me any definite information whether in regard to these new buildings and the conversion or resuscitation of old buildings this question of an electric supply into a bathroom has been definitely considered. Is there any provision in the Bill to prevent such accidents from happening any more? I should be grateful if 'he could tell me that.

LORD BRECON

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that question, because electrical equipment in a bathroom can be extremely dangerous, especially as its installation is normally done by amateurs instead of people who know what to do. I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord has said, to see whether be can do something to let it be known publicly, but I do not think that we can put it in this Bill.

LORD TEVIOT

I beg to thank the noble Lord for his reply.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.17 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), after "bath", to insert "with supply of hot and cold water connected to it,". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. When I first read this clause I wondered whether someone in the Department had had a recollection of old times, when it was thought that a bath was placed in a house as something to be used for storing coal; and, therefore, having thoughtfully provided such a receptacle for coal, had not deemed it necessary to have a supply of water, either hot or cold, to the bath—because the Bill does not provide for a connected water supply. However, the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, has come to my rescue in the next Amendment, to which he has already referred and which provides for a shower bath, if desired, instead of a bath. I welcome this Amendment, as it will, I think, be most helpful for old people, and also in cases where space may be limited and where it is not possible to provide a bathroom.

But then, again, my memory comes in, because obviously one cannot take a shower bath without water; and as old people will probably be those who will use the shower baths it occurred to me that not many of them will be spartan enough to want a cold shower. Therefore, in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, providing for a shower bath, it will be necessary also, in our opinion, to provide for the provision of a water supply, both hot and cold, to the bath, and also to the shower.

There is just one minor point. I would not stress this at all, but I believe it is possible to buy a shower bath which can be used as a shower without any connection to a water supply. I believe they are on the market, but I take it that that is not what is in my noble friend's mind. I would put it to the Minister that, while one would think that implied in providing a bath is also the necessity for providing a water supply, it is as well to make it quite clear and to make provision for a supply of both hot and cold. Without that provision it would be quite possible to say, "Well, you could fill the bath in another way by heating your water", and all that sort of thing. I am sure the noble Lord does not want people to carry pails of water from a gas or electric heater and empty them into the bath when they want to take a bath. I venture to say that this Amendment to make it obligatory to have a water supply is necessary to give effect to the intention of the clause, and I hope that, in those circumstances, the Minister will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 30, after ("bath") insert ("with supply of hot and cold water connected to it,"). —(Lord Burden.)

LORD CHORLEY

I hope the noble Lord will find himself able to accept this Amendment. It seems to many of us that it is necessary in order to make the clause in the Bill as it stands really effective. As my noble friend Lord Burden has pointed out, there are ways in which the obligation to put a bath into houses and dwellings of this kind can be made quite ineffective, and this is the view of the local authorities themselves. There is a good deal of interest in this clause on the part of local authorities, as has been brought to my notice, and that is why I join myself with my noble friend Lord Burden in connection with this Amendment. I understand that there are local government Bills at present in the legislative stage in which this particular provision appears; but I rather gather, although I am not very expert on the problem of the inter-connection between a Public Bill of this kind and a Private Bill of the type which a county council puts through, that the Ministry which the noble Lord is representing here will, in effect, say that the Public Bill must come first. That may very well have the effect of holding up the rather more complete provisions in some of these local authority Bills, which are written out more fully and are directed to securing that not only shall there be a bath in a house of this kind, but that the bath shall in fact be connected with a supply of hot and cold water, so that it may be an effective bath and the people who, live in the house may be able to use it in the most convenient, effective and efficient manner.

5.25 p.m.

LORD BRECON

I should very much like to know something more about Lord Burden's shower which he dots not connect to the water taps at all. That seemed an interesting innovation and I should like to know what comes out of it. The earlier Government Amendments to this clause dealing with shower-baths will have provided an opportunity to explain that the Minister hopes local authorities will never have to exercise the power, provided by this clause, to reject the plans of a new dwelling unless they showed that it would have a bathroom with a bath or shower. Fortunately, houses are not built nowadays without this essential amenity; and if they were the owners would not find buyers for them. It is for the same reason even less likely that a builder will try to evade this particular requirement by providing a bath without water laid on. If this was a serious possibility, one would have to go even further than Lord Burden's Amendment and legislate also for a waste-pipe, or an overflow pipe, and a plug. Surely it is not necessary to go into such detail.

The noble Lord, Lord Burden, may be much more concerned, however, to ensure that hot water is connected to the bath, and this may be the main object of his Amendment. Hot water is, of course, desirable, and again it is difficult to imagine a house being built to-day without a hot water system. But there is a difference between what is desirable and what can or should be statutorily enforced. There are no precedents in local Acts, so far as the Department is aware, for a requirement that hot water must be connected to the bath. Nor is there any general legislation on the point.

This Amendment would therefore represent a major legislative innovation in the housing field and is not suitable to be considered in this Bill. It requires much more study. But if it were concluded that the provision of a hot water system should be legally enforced even for new houses, it would still be preferable for the change to be made as part of housing legislation, rather than in this Bill. For those reasons, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am afraid I rather regret the reply of the noble Lord. If my memory serves me aright, in the Offices Bill we laid it down that hot and cold water should be provided in offices. I speak subject to correction here, but I understand that that is so. Therefore, if we have laid it down that this is a requirement for offices, I think we are entitled to say that the landlord, or a person building a house, should provide facilities to supply hot and cold water. I do not think that is unreasonable.

LORD CHORLEY

I hope the noble Lord will look at this matter again. The objection he has may be quite a reasonable one in certain parts of the country, but it can easily be got over. I have no doubt that the noble Lord has looked at the later Amendments which I have put down, which are directed to exactly that sort of difficulty and provide that, if the implementation of this provision is not reasonably practicable in some particular case, then this provision will no longer be mandatory. The noble Lord must have seen these later Amendments, and I really think they cover the argument which he is now putting up. Therefore, on that basis I think he can safely accept this Amendment, which seems to me to be essential to the proper implementation of the policy of the Government with regard to this clause itself.

LORD SILKEN

I have listened to the noble Lord, and I must say I found his reply singularly—for a change—unconvincing. First he says that it is unnecessary to legislate for the provision of hot water, because in these days no one could sell a house—or at any rate let it—unless a proper bathroom, with either a shower or other such facilities, was provided. But if that is so, why provide this clause at all in the Bill? The argument which the noble Lord puts forward, that nobody in his senses to-day would build a house without providing a bathroom, still holds good, and in those circumstances there is no need to legislate. Therefore, I am not convinced. Since we are legislating, let us do the thing properly. Everyone must recognise, in these days, that it is useless to provide a bathroom unless you provide adequate facilities for bathing. It is essential that there should be hot water as well as cold and it ought to be so provided, otherwise you are rendering nugatory the provision you are making.

But, says the noble Lord, such a requirement would be so far-reaching that it would not be appropriate in a Bill of this kind. I just cannot understand that. He is already providing in this Bill for a bathroom and for food storage accommodation in existing houses and in new houses. On his argument, all these things would be more suitable in a Housing Bill than in a Bill of this kind, but they are in the Bill and I see nothing, revolutionary or dramatic these days in providing hot water. Moreover, on his argument, nobody would build a new house to-day without proper provision for food storage; yet he has a clause providing for it. So I really do not think that the argument he is putting forward is convincing. I think that this is a case where he ought to look at the provision again to see if he cannot include something of the sort proposed in the Amendment, which I am happy to support, since on other occasions I have not supported my noble friend.

While I am on my feet, may I say that I am sorry that I had to leave the Chamber for a moment? I am not clear whether the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord about the erection of a house is intended to apply only to new houses or also to the conversion of existing houses into a number of flats. In reading this provision I feel some doubt about the intention to apply it to converted houses. I must say that I fail to understand why, when converting houses, there should not be the require-men, to have a bathroom in each separate unit. Why not? Since we are legislating to provide better accommodation, what possible objection can there be to providing a bathroom for each unit? Unfortunately, we have let this Amendment go by, but I would give the noble Lord notice that we shall came back to it, because I think that it is quite wrong nowadays to permit a conversion without each unit having a bathroom.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

We have just listened to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has used the word "facilities", which I think makes all the difference. When I read this Amendment about the supply of hot and cold water, I considered the fact that the builder does not supply the water hot—only the facilities for making it hot. I would press the importance of this because there are so many different ways in which water can be heated. I can see the difference when dealing with offices, where somebody has to be in charge of the supply of hot water and of cleaning an office; but here it is a house that is being built, and it means that there must be facilities for supplying hot water. But we must not suggest that it is the builder who supplies hot water.

LORD BURDEN

I agree with the noble Baroness. That is why I beg the Minister to have a look at this again. We have got on so well with this Bill up till now that I feel we ought not to come to a real difference of opinion on an Amendment of this kind. With the utmost respect, I say that the noble Lord's argument makes nonsense of his own Amendment. His proposal is an innovation. There is no local Act, so far as I know, which authorises local authorities to insist on either a bath or a shower; so to that extent the noble Lord is breaking fresh ground. And we are very glad that he is doing it. All we are asking him to do is to complete the logic of his own Amendment. As the noble Baroness has said, the Bill ought to provide that facilities for hot and cold water should be in the plan submitted by the builders. If I may say so, I think that the people who drafted this objection must have been tired, otherwise they would have seen the illogical way in which the Minister was asked to oppose the Amendment. I would ask the noble Lord to have a serious look at this point, seeing that the Amendment has been supported from the other side and we have had the valiant effort of my noble friend supporting me this afternoon.

LORD BRECON

I shall certainly be content to take this back and refer it to my right honourable friend, and to report upon it at the next stage. To go back to Clause 30, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I have noted what he said and will discuss the matter with him later.

LORD BURDEN

With the assurance that the Minister will look at this Amendment again—and I hope that he will come forward with something tangible, and will keep us informed on his views with regard to it—I beg leave of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BRECON

This Amendment is linked with the previous Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 30, after ("bath") insert ("or a shower bath,").—(Lord Brecon.)

LORD SILKIN

If it is intended by this Amendment that the developer should have the option of providing either a fixed bath or a shower bath, I must say, speaking for myself—and it is a matter of taste entirely—that I do not regard a shower bath as a suitable alternative to a fixed bath. I think that as a supplement it is very nice; hut as a means of washing the baby, and of generally conducting tie ablutions of the household, I should think that a shower bath alone was hopelessly inadequate and, if I may say so, dangerous. I do not know whether other noble Lords have experienced this, but I find it difficult to regulate the supply of water with a shower. You think you are running water at a reasonable temperature and suddenly you find that you are getting scalded. I do not know whether that is a common experience, but I have had it over and over again. The result is that I always have a cold shower, and there is no risk. If a shower were the only means of having a bath, I think that would be unsatisfactory. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to reconsider whether he really intends to give the developer this alternative of providing either a bath or a shower.

LORD SHEPHERD

I fully support my noble friend in this matter, but I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, what exactly is meant by "a shower bath." Does it mean a pipe sticking out of a wall, with a nozzle, which simply squirts water? Or does it mean a proper installation by which, if the shower is used, the bathroom, or the room in which the shower is provided, is not flooded out with water? I imagine that in his travels the noble Lord may have seen some of these hasty improvisations in hotels where water is squirted in all directions. If that is what is meant by a "shower bath," I am sure it is not right. If what is meant by a "shower bath" is that it has proper installations—say, with glass walls—there may be something in it. I think we should know something more of what is meant by "shower bath."

LORD BRECON

It would be a proper installation in place of a bath, and not an improvised one in any way. It would be for the local authority, when they saw the plans, to approve of it and to ensure that it would be a proper substitute for a bath. There are people who find it extremely difficult to get into a bath, and even more difficult to get out of one. Therefore, it would be convenient for some people to have a shower bath. It may be advisable that one day every one will have a bath and a shower, and perhaps we may have a shower that does not run hot and cold, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, finds it at the present moment. However, I am willing to talk to my right honourable friend to see whether we can get a clearer definition of "a shower bath". But it is not intended as a loophole for those who do not want to put in baths.

LORD SHEPHERD

As the Bill is now framed, it might well be.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.43 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY had given Notice of two Amendments to Clause 30, the first being in subsection (2), after "under" to insert, "subsection (1) of". The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the succeeding one are really drafting Amendments. In other clauses the draftsman usually puts the whole words "subsection (1) of" instead of leaving the provision that appears in lines 33 and 36. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 33, after ("under") insert the said words.—(Lord Charley.)

LORD BRECON

Clause 30 enables local authorities to reject the plans of new dwellings if they show that such dwellings would not contain bathrooms. Lord Chorley's Amendment would add a further power enabling local authorities to require the owner to provide a bathroom with running hot and cold water for every separate dwelling already in existence which at present lacks this amenity. Saving clauses are included on the lines of Clause 29 and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will doubtless point to Clauses 28 and 29 which deal with food storage accommodation; the former covers new dwellings and the latter (on which this Amendment is based) enables local authorities to require the provision of larders in existing houses. The extension is unprecedented so far as the Department is aware and cannot be said to be an Amendment commonly made in local Acts. For this reason it could be regarded as outside the Long Title of the Bill.

The more important argument against these Amendments is based on the difficulty of tackling a very widespread problem in this kind of way. About 3 million out of the 14½ million of dwellings in England and Wales still lack a fixed bath in a bathroom. This is a relic of the days when building standards were not as high as they are now. It is obviously most desirable that, wherever possible, standards of accommodation should be improved and proper washing facilities provided. But this is not to say that the right solution is to enable local authorities to require people by Statute to provide bathrooms.

The Government are energetically encouraging property owners to improve their houses in this way, among others, and grants are available for such improvements. But practical problems are all-important here, and are far less easy to overcome than in the sort of case contemplated by Clause 29. The provision of a larder or some other kind of food storage accommodation would probably not be very difficult, but the provision of a bathroom and a hot water system is quite another matter. Often it would involve building on an annex to the house, involving extra, and probably expensive, plumbing. Where additional accommodation for the bath was not provided, it would have to be taken from accommodation now in use for other purposes. How the work should be financed, whether or not a tenant wanted such a reduction in his accommodation, and whether or not he was willing or able to pay more rent however the bathroom was provided—all these are extremely difficult issues raised by this Amendment. So, too, is its relation to the existing law of rent control and improvement grants. Due to these difficulties of providing bathrooms in existing houses, other than by encouragement through grants, I cannot, on behalf of the Government, accept this Amendment.

LORD CHORLEY

The noble Lord is much wiser than I am about this Amendment. I was asked to put it clown without being given any very wide explanation of it, bat it seems to me that it is purely a drafting Amendment to alter the words as they at present stand, If the local authority reject the plans under this section. The proposal is to alter that to, under subsection (1)", which is the subsection that they have to see is complied with. I should not have thought that there was as much in it as the noble Lord suggests. However, if that is the right view—and I have no doubt he has been advised about this by people who are much better able to judge than I am—I suppose I must take that decision and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHORLEY had given notice of a further Amendment to Clause 30. The noble Lord said: This Amendment was really put down to provide safeguards in relation to Amendment No. 35 in the names of my noble friend Lord Burden and myself, as I explained in one of my interjections in regard to that Amendment. If it is to be put down again, in a perhaps slightly different form, at the next stage, there is no point in going into these proposals now, and it will be better if I do not move the Amendment.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31 [Filthy or verminous premises]:

LORD BRECON

This Amendment is needed in order to correct a drafting mistake. The word "subsection" has been printed in line 30, on page 24, instead of the word "section". I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 24, line 30, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").—(Lord Brecon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 32 to 34 agreed to.

Clause 35 [Information to be furnished by occupier in case of notifiable disease or food poisoning]:

LORD BURDEN

I do not propose to move the next Amendment,

LORD NEWTON

I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to move his Amendment formally, so that I could make a few observations upon it?

LORD BURDEN

I formally move the Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 35, after ("health") insert ("or public health inspector").—(Lord Burden.)

LORD NEWTON

I am grateful to the noble Lord. It had been my intention to recommend to the Committee that they should not accept this Amendment, but in view of the general undertaking which has been given by my noble friend Lord Brecon already, I of course will give a similar undertaking that this Amendment will be looked at again by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health. I do not wish to promise that whatever new thoughts, if any, may be had about the earlier Amendments moved by the noble Lord will necessarily be true of this one. The general argument against accepting this Amendment is that in the past Parliament has been reluctant to confer powers or to place responsibilities on individual officers of local authorities except where it is clearly necessary to do so, on the general ground that, so far as possible, the responsibility for any action which is the concern of the authority ought to rest with the elected body itself. That is the proposition which my noble friend enunciated earlier.

So far as this Amendment is concerned, there are two other points which I should like to put before your Lordships. The first is that the public health inspector has no statutory duties under Part V of the Public Health Act, 1936, in relation to the prevention, notification and treatment of disease, and there is no precedent in local legislation for giving him direct powers relating to the control of infectious diseases. Thus, in that respect the present Amendment would involve a significant innovation. The other additional point I wanted to make is this. Public health inspectors, as members of the staff of the public health department, perform their duties under the general direction of the medical officer of health. In effect, what this Amendment is asking is that not only should a statutory power be given to an official but that it should also be given to an official who is in a subordinate position to another official. It is for those reasons that I was going to recommend to the Committee that the noble Lord's Amendment should not he accepted. But, as I say I will undertake that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health will consider it again.

LORD BURDEN

I cannot allow the noble Lord to get away with that remark about "subordinate position" and to say for that reason the name or term "public health officer" should not be included in the Bill. As a matter of fact, it is included in the Public Health Act, 1936. I am sorry, I am wrong; that mentioned the local authority. So far as public health officers and the medical officer of health are concerned, it is true that there is a statutory rule of order going back to the twenties which brings the public health inspector under the general super- vision. I am aware of that. But the fact is that there has been growing up, particularly with the development of public health functions, a difficulty in getting properly qualified inspectors. For various reasons, the medical officers of health have not been insisting on that general supervision—which a very vague term indeed—and public health inspectors, in the majority of cases, make their reports direct to the appropriate committee. I am sorry that the noble Lord has made me branch out on that subject, but it was his own doing—he asked for it. I am quite content if the general position is surveyed and if we get Amendments on the Report stage where, if necessary, we will deal with it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

There is rather an important omission in the description in Amendment No. 43. It should read: Page 26, line 36, leave out from the second ("district") to ("in") in line 37.

LORD BURDEN

In moving this Amendment, I am going to correct myself. I find that my memory was correct, and that Section 83 (1) of the Public Health Act, 1936, reads: Where it appears to a local authority upon a certificate of the medical officer of health or the sanitary inspector… The name "sanitary inspector" has been changed by legislation to "public health inspector", so I am afraid the noble Lord's argument falls to the ground. But we will leave the general position to be considered, and I beg, formally to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 36, leave out from the second ("district") to ("in") in line 37.—(Lord Burden.)

LORD NEWTON

Under Clause 35, as drafted, only the occupiers of premises in the district used for human habitation are required to help the medical officer of health in these inquiries. The Amendment of the noble Lord would extend the application of the clause to occupiers of business and other premises including shops, restaurants, offices and factories. This is an Amendment which appeals to my right honourable friend. He is grateful to the noble Lord for putting it down, and I am happy to recommend the Committee to accept it.

LORD BURDEN

I thank the noble Lord for accepting the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

5.59 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 35, to insert the following new clause:

Restriction on attendances at public places, etc.

".section one hundred and forty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1936, shall have effect as if the following paragraph were substituted for paragraph (b) thereof: —

(b) having the care of a person—

• (i) whom he knows to be suffering from a notifiable disease, or
• (ii) whom he cannot permit to attend school without contravening section 150 of this Act,

causes or permits that person to expose other persons to the risk of infection by his presence or conduct in any such place as aforesaid; or'".

The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who will be back shortly, I am moving this Amendment. I am glad to cite in its support the model clause (No. 75) of the 1960 revision—the model clauses which have beers repeatedly referred to during the course of the Committee's consideration of this Bill. Section 148 of the Public Health Act, 1936, makes it an offence knowingly to risk spreading a notifiable disease. An infected person must stay away or be kept away from public places, and any clothing, bedding or rags which have been exposed to infection must not be disposed of without previous disinfection. The proposed new clause amends this section by making it an offence for a person having care of a child to cause or permit the child to attend a public place during a period when fie child is not permitted by the medical officer of health to attend school because of infection by or exposure to a notifiable disease.

It seems to me this is a straightforward and sensible precaution which most parents are already scrupulously careful to adopt and act on without any legislation. But there are always some unco-operative parents, and in many cases unco-operative persons can be satisfactorily dealt with only if the medical officer of health can be reinforced by legislation and can say that the restriction he is imposing is that imposed by law. I submit that it is just as important to prevent children who have been infected by or exposed to a notifiable disease from attending public places, such as cinemas, swimming pools and so on, as to forbid them to attend school. It is going only a part of the way in the prevention of the spreading of the disease to make non-attendance at school compulsory and then allow the child to go into a crowded cinema when there is a children's performance, with hundreds of children gathered together in the cinema on Saturday mornings at a reduced entrance charge of twopence or threepence or something like that. To allow these children to associate with other children when they are forbidden to go to school seems to me an absurdity which ought to be put right by legislation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 35, insert the said new clause—(Lord Burden.)

LORD NEWTON

As the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has said, Section 148 of the Public Health Act, 1936, makes it an offence for a person knowingly to risk spreading a notifiable disease, either by his own presence or conduct in a public place while suffering from a notifiable disease or by that of a person in his charge suffering from a notifiable, disease. The noble Lord's Amendment would make it an offence for a person having care of a child to cause or permit the child to attend a public place when the medical officer of health of the district concerned had issued a notice that the child was not to be permitted to attend school because of infection by, or exposure to, a notifiable disease. If a child who has been excluded from school in this way, by virtue of a notice issued by the medical officer of health, is later found to be suffering from a notifiable disease then Section 148 (b) of the 1936 Act applies and makes it an offence for the person in charge to permit the child to expose other persons to the risk of infection by his presence or conduct in a public place. The practical effect of Lord Burden's Amendment would be to make a person having care of a child similarly liable where the child had been exposed to infection but was not suffering from a notifiable disease. I think I have made the distinction clear; I hope that I have.

The noble Lord has said that this Amendment is incorporated in a number of local Acts, but my right honourable friend the Minister of Health does not think that it would be appropriate to incorporate it in general legislation, because Section 148 of the Public Health Act, 1936, is concerned with the prevention of the spreading of infection by a person suffering from a notifiable disease, and it seems inappropriate in general legislation to extend the provision of Section 148 to cover the different case of a child who although he has been exposed to infection has not been diagnosed as suffering from a notifiable disease. It does not necessarily follow that because specific provision has been made under Section 150 of the Public Health Act to exclude from school a child who has been exposed to infection it is necessary to exclude the child in such circumstances from all other public places and my right honourable friend is advised by his medical advisers that the risk of the spread of infection by a child who has been exposed to infection is considerably less in the majority of public places than in the confined atmosphere of a school classroom. I hope that for the reasons I have given the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD BURDEN

I do not follow the noble Lord. My Amendment says that Section 148 of the Public Health Act shall have effect applied to a person having the care of a person whom he knows to be suffering from a notifiable disease. As I read this Amendment, the child is kept away from school because it is suffering from some notifiable disease. All we say is that that child ought not to be allowed to go to a cinema or a swimming pool and risk spreading among other children the disease from which he is suffering; that as he is under the care of someone or other, the person who is responsible— parent or guardian, or whoever it may be—must see to it that the child does not go and spread disease; or, if he does do so, that the parent or guardian comes under the rigour of the law.

LORD REA

I wonder if the noble Lord could explain something which is perhaps not clear to us all. It seems to me that we are discussing what is called quarantine. If a child is forbidden to go to school because it is in quarantine, that is one matter; but the prohibition on going to cinemas or other places applies not when it is in quarantine but only when it is suffering from disease. If a child is in quarantine and is a potential disease-spreader, it should either be allowed or not be allowed to go to both such places.

LORD NEWTON

The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has in general terms stated the position very well. As I said earlier, to accept this Amendment would be an extension of the present ambit of Section 148 of the Public Health Act.

LORD BURDEN

What is wrong with extending it, if it is in the interests of the community?

LORD NEWTON

I also went on to say that in my right honourable friend's opinion, on the basis of advice given to him, the risk of spreading infection is greater generally in school than in most other places.

LORD LATHAM

Greater than in a cinema?

LORD NEWTON

I should have thought that children go to school, or ought to, far more often than they go to the cinema.

LORD BURDEN

All I can say is that I should like the noble Lord's right honourable friend to stand outside any popular cinema before the children's performance on a Saturday morning and see the children crowding in. When one knows that they are in a place where it is dark, where other people have been and so on, to say that a properly ventilated and clean school constitutes a greater risk than any cinema, to my mind is simply sheer, downright nonsense.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

6.10 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 35 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 1177 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 magistrate's 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: I expect I shall be told that this Amendment is an extension of existing legislation, because by this clause medical officers of health or some other person authorised by the council would be empowered to request a person suffering from tuberculosis who cooks, prepares or handles food other than for his own or his household's consumption, temporarily to discontinue his occupation. Before doing so the medical officer of health must be satisfied that his continuance in that occupation would be a danger to the health of other persons. The clause gives power to the local authorities, if they think fit, to compensate the employee for any loss occasioned by his compliance with this request. A magistrates' court also has power to compel the payment of such compensation. The requirements of the clause are enforceable by an order of the court, and for any failure to comply with any such order there may he imposed a fine not exceeding £5, and a daily fine not exceeding 40s. may be imposed for a continuing offence.

The Association of Municipal Corporations has pressed for the inclusion of this clause, but I am afraid that the Ministry take the view that there is no real risk of the transference of tuber- culosis by people who handle food, and that therefore this clause is unnecessary. I wish that the Minister and those who have advised him would read George Orwell's book Down and Out in Paris and London, especially the chapter dealing with employment in an hotel. From that they would know whether there was any risk of people suffering from tuberculosis spreading the disease. But that is by the way. Perhaps things are a little better now than when George Orwell wrote before the Second World War. But, quite apart from that, the Association of Municipal Corporations' medical officers, who are experienced local authority medical officers of health, have been consulted; they are unanimous in their view that this clause is necessary, and they do not agree with the Ministry's view. The consensus of their opinion is that persons suffering front infectious tuberculosis should be actively discouraged from handling food for consumption by the public. This is a reasonable view and I have no hesitation in recommending it to the Committee.

I think the proposed new clause is a sensible precaution and the minimum that ought to be applied to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. I agree that it is possible by figures to prove that the number of cases of pulmonary tuberculosis is falling. That may be due to many other considerations. It may be due to better housing, to better cleanliness and all that sort of thing. But the strong point is that experienced medical officers of health, who have before them the case papers of their own chest and tuberculosis officers showing the details of each separate case, are unanimous that a clause of this kind is necessary for the protection of the public. I most earnestly commend it to the Minister. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 35 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Burden.)

LORD SHEPHERD

I rise to support my noble friend in this Amendment. I have had some experience in British Colonies in dealing with tuberculosis and the danger of its spreading, particularly through people with this dreadful disease being in positions of work involving food and drink. I would say to my noble friend who moved this Amendment that I personally should have gone a little further. Had it been possible, I would have made it obligatory for all people involved in the sale of food to undergo X-ray examination. If this were done, I believe it would give to the public the protection which they deserve. Tuberculosis is a disease that can spread quickly and I think that the public should be protected. Therefore, I strongly support this Amendment. Perhaps in some directions it goes too far; but I would ask the Government most strongly to accept the principle behind the Amendment. If they quibble over certain of the words or phrases I am sure that my noble friend would not object to some revision, but I am certain that he will require the Government to accept the principle underlying the Amendment.

LORD NEWTON

I am most grateful to the two noble Lords for what they have said in support of this new clause. Honestly, I find this a difficult one, because it is extremely technical and I am not a technician. But I am bound to say that my advice to the Committee will have to be that they should not accept this new clause. What it does is to give the medical officer of health of an area power to require a person suffering from tuberculosis and in an infectious state to discontinue his occupation in the cooking, preparation or handling, of food intended for consumption by persons other than himself or his household. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health is advised by his medical advisers that there is no need for these provisions because, in the opinion of his advisers, they are not of value in the prevention of tuberculosis. That is the medical advice to my right honourable friend.

LORD SILKIN

Could the noble Lord repeat what he has said?

LORD NEWTON

I said my right honourable friend the Minister of Health is advised by his medical advisers that there is no need for these provisions because, in the opinion of his advisers, they are not of value in the prevention of tuberculosis. May I go on to amplify that by saying that in reply to a question in another place on February 16, 1959, the then Minister of Health said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 600, col. 16]: There is no evidence that transmission of tuberculosis occurs through the handling of food. While many people may feel an instinctive distaste to the idea of food being handled by tubercular persons—and I should think the noble Lords who have just spoken are probably included in that category—I am told that medical opinion to-day is clear that pulmonary tuberculosis is an airborne rather than a foodborne infection. The disease largely occurs in the pulmonary form and is acquired by close contact with sufferers; and there is no more reason—and this is all in the view of my right honourable friend's medical advisers—for preventing a tubercular person from handling food than from working in an office.

I am advised that, especially in infants and children, tuberculosis may be caused by an alimentary infection conveyed by milk from cows infected with the bovine type of tubercle bacilli. There are in existence regulations (the Public Health (Prevention of Tuberculosis) Regulations, 1925) to prohibit a person knowingly suffering from tuberculosis from entering, on any employment or occupation involving the milking of cows, the treatment of milk or the handling of milk containers but these regulations are no longer regarded so much as serving a purpose in preventing transmission of the disease directly from a patient to the consumer, as in preventing transmission of the disease through cattle infected by a tubercular person. In fact, no cases are known of tuberculosis conveyed by milk infected by contact with a human sufferer. It was formerly held that the pulmonary disease in adults was the result of an infection of the alimentary tract, but this theory has now been superseded. I am afraid that that explanation has been rather technical and I am not a technician, but it is because of this medical evidence that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, they would not be justified in singling out food handling for prohibition to tubercular persons by means of general legislation.

LORD SILKIN

This comes as somewhat of a surprise. The noble Lord is, on his own admission, no more competent to express a view than we arc. The noble Lord who put his name down to the Amendment—the noble Lord, Lord Amulree—unfortunately has not been able to move it himself and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is no doubt in a stronger position as a result. I do not think we can ignore what the noble Lord has said, however surprising it may be, and I would advise my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment and consider what the noble Lord has said and possibly see whether there is any further evidence.

I am sure that what has been said by the noble Lord will come as a great shock to a large number of people throughout the country, who until this moment have been under the impression that persons suffering from tuberculosis are a danger in handling food. Incidentally, the noble Lord did not do justice to the Amendment itself, because in addition to the conditions that he has read there is the further condition that that person's continuance in that occupation would, in the judgment of the medical officer, be a danger to the health of other persons. What the noble Lord is saying is that that can never happen: that that person can never satisfy that condition because he could never be a danger to the health of other persons by handling food. I think all of us ought to look at this matter again. It may be that, on further consideration, the Minister may find there is some evidence of this having happened, but I feel we cannot ignore what the noble Lord has said. While it is entirely a matter for my noble friend, I believe that the right course would be for this matter to be reconsidered on both sides of the Committee and brought up again at a later stage.

LORD BURDEN

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Silkin and, with the leave of the Committee. I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, because I feel that if the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, himself had been here he would have been able to deal with the position which has been set forth to the Committee by the noble Lord the Minister. If I now withdraw the Amendment it will give the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, an opportunity between now and the Report stage to review what has been said and if necessary bring forward some alternative ideas which may be acceptable to him and the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36:

Exclusion of children from places of entertainment or assembly

36.—(1) This section applies—

(b) to any sports grounds, outdoor swimming baths, outdoor swimming pool, or skating or roller skating rink, to which the public are admitted, either on payment of a charge for admission or not, and

THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "outdoor swimming baths, outdoor swimming pool". The noble Earl said: I beg leave to move this Amendment, which should be taken with the next Amendment standing in my name because they are dependent upon each other. Perhaps I may speak to both of them, and then formally move the second. There are two purposes for these Amendments. First, Clause 36 (1) (a) as it stands must cause one to wonder why indoor swimming baths and swimming pools are not covered by the clause. I understand that Parliamentary Counsel have advised that the words "or other building" which are used in paragraph (a) would include indoor swimming pools and baths. Your Lordships may feel that, technically, this may be correct; but one could equally argue that to refer expressly to outdoor baths is expressly to exclude indoor baths. One purpose of the Amendment, therefore, is to improve the wording.

Secondly, the clause applies only to swimming baths and swimming pools to which the public are admitted. The Amendment seeks to extend the clause to swimming baths and pools which are used by large numbers of people and where there is a danger of infection—for example, those at holiday camps, and school baths used by local associations during school holidays. The Rural District Councils' Association are advised that the clause as at present drafted would not cover such swimming pools. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 18, leave out ("outdoor swimming baths, outdoor swimming pool").—(The Earl of Gainsborough.)

LORD NEWTON

Clause 36 provides that with a view to preventing the spread of a notifiable disease a local authority, on the advice of their medical officer of health may, by means of a notice to the public, prohibit or restrict for a specified time the admission of persons under sixteen whether or not a charge for admission is made to any of the places of entertainment or assembly specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1). The noble Lord was worried, on the first count, that the clause as drafted will not catch indoor swimming pools. I think he may be assured that in fact they are caught by virtue of the reference in subsection 1 (a) to: any hall or other building which is used as a place of public resort, That is the legal advice, and thus, in so far as the noble Earl's two Amendments are designed to remove any doubt about the application of the provision to indoor swimming baths or pools, I do not think he need have any fears.

The second consequence of the proposed Amendment has much more substance to it. The application of Clause 36 as drafted is restricted to indoor swimming baths or pools which are "a place of public resort" and to outdoor swimming baths or pools which are either free or for which a specific charge of admission is made. Thus, indoor baths or pools of which the use is restricted to members of clubs or guests of hotels or holiday camps are not covered; nor are outdoor pools which are a facility included in a club subscription or a rate for accommodation and service.

If the noble Earl's Amendments were adopted, that would give a local authority, on the advice of their medical officer of health, the power to restrict or prohibit the admission of children to swimming baths or pools used only by members of clubs or the guests of hotels or holiday camps. But a specific provision to extend the general law to swimming pools in clubs, hotels or holiday camps would go beyond the scope of the model clause for local Acts, which deals throughout with places of public resort. The two Amendments are therefore contrary to the intention of the Bill as a whole, which is to enact well-precedented local provisions which are either non-controversial or, at any rate, not too controversial. The extension of powers to such premises as clubs or hotels or holiday camps would open up a wholly new and different field and one which I do not think I can recommend your Lordships to enter by means of this Bill. It would, in fact, be an extension of State interference; and it is not the purpose of this Bill to make innovations of that kind. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.

THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for what he said in regard to the first of the Amendments and for the assurance which he has given. With regard to the second point, I appreciate what he has said. In fact, I thought that that would be the answer: that in this Bill such a new proposal could not be considered. But I thought it worth while bringing the matter to the Committee's notice because there are a large number of these pools in places used by large numbers of people where there is a possibility of infection. But in view of what he said said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36 agreed to.

Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.

LORD BRECON

I think this is a convenient moment to break off the discussion on the Public Health Bill and, with your agreement, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Brecon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.