Vol. 109 No. 5
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (b), page 9, line 2, to delete "fourteen" and substitute "twenty-one".
When a local authority has made a provisional drainage order under Section 12 and the necessary works have not been carried out within the time specified the sanitary authority may themselves execute these works and the amendment provides for an increase in the number of days within which an appeal must be made under the section.
On the section, I want to have a point cleared up. I cannot quite understand the effect of sub-section (4) where there are several holdings connected with pipes and provision is made that the limiting length where the local authority does not come in is 100 feet multiplied by the number of houses. I am wondering if that is not rather harsh. Presumably, a number of houses in a group or row would be served by one pipe with off-shoots and the total length of such pipes would be relatively smaller in that case than in the case of a number of single houses. It strikes me that it is not quite fair to multiply the 100 feet by the number of houses as compared with taking 100 feet under sub-section (3) for a single house.
In reply to the Deputy, this section is to enable buildings which may be somewhat widely separated to be connected by a water pipe, and in order to do that the sanitary authority is responsible for the cost where there is an excess in the total length of pipes over the aggregate of 100 feet multiplied by the number of houses. You, therefore, divide the total aggregate of pipe by the number of houses before arriving at a decision as to how much the owner is responsible for; it is in mitigation of the expense, rather than any increase in the expense, since the sanitary authority pays for the balance.
I am suggesting that where a group of houses is served by a main which was not in existence prior to this work being undertaken, one main would run in and small branches would run from it to each house in the row. The landlord would have to pay for the whole pipe system.
I think, perhaps, the Deputy misunderstands the section. The local authority is responsible for laying the ordinary main and it is to the connection between the water main and the houses this section refers.
It is quite clear that there is a definite distinction?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (b), page 13, line 38, to delete "fourteen" and substitute "twenty-one".
This amendment is the same as that in connection with the original drainage order. It is giving more notice to people who desire to appeal in a case where a water supply order has not been carried out within the time specified. They have more time to appeal.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (a), page 15, line 5, to insert "either within or without its district or to another sanitary authority" after "water".
These words are being inserted for the purpose of removing any possible doubts as to the scope of the section.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (b), page 15, line 10, to insert "either within or without its district or to another sanitary authority" after "water".
The same thing applies to this.
I think it is in Section 34 it is provided that the registration of a camping site will not apply where the owner of the land or some member of his household wishes to camp. I am wondering if the line of demarcation is not being drawn rather close. I am imagining circumstances where the owner of land might have near relatives, say, cousins or nephews, who wanted to camp. They would not be members of his household in the strict sense of the term. It looks to me as if a man who wanted to allow some relatives to camp would have to apply for registration for a camping site.
I think the Deputy need not have any fear. I think members of his household will count as relatives. If the Deputy will look at Section 34, sub-section (12), paragraph (b) it says: "If the land is occupied in connection with a permanent dwelling situate on or in the vicinity of such land, and the camping is carried on by no persons other than the occupier of the permanent dwelling and members of his household..."
That is just the point. Who would be held in law to be members of his household?
I cannot interpret the law, but I can imagine that people who were relatives or friends of his and who resided with him would be declared members of the household for the purposes of this section.
I am thinking of relatives who would not be residing in his household but who would come on a visit to camp there. Supposing young nephews keen on camping, belonging to some boys' organisation, came along to camp on their uncle's farm. Apparently, the uncle has to register his farm as a camping site.
Perhaps the Deputy will be satisfied if we look into it and make quite sure that the matter is in order as he wishes. I agree with him that it should not have the effect of preventing people who are closely associated with a particular family from camping close to the residence. We will look into it and make sure that the Deputy's interpretation is not correct.
May I ask if there is any restriction under this section with regard to land owned by public authorities, such as the margin of a road where travelling dealers, tinkers and people like that camp? Will this section restrict that particular kind of camping in any way? It is certainly very objectionable where there is a wide margin on the side of a road and travelling people insist upon camping there day after day or night after night and become quite a nuisance to people residing in the immediate vicinity. So far as I know, there is no very effective means of checking that abuse. If one group of persons come there, the Guards usually get them to move on. But then another group will come along and occupy the same position, so that people in the vicinity are subjected to a very considerable amount of nuisance and trespass. Would it be possible under this section to restrict that?
If the Deputy will look at Section 31, which has been already passed, he will see that it enables a sanitary authority to prohibit the erection of temporary dwellings on any land or water in their sanitary district if they are of opinion that they would be prejudicial to public health or the amenities of the locality or would interfere to an unreasonable extent with traffic on any road. There is a right to appeal in connection with a prohibition of that kind to the Minister and, for the contravention of a prohibition order, the court may order the forfeiture of the temporary dwelling. How far that section will apply in practice is a matter for the local authority.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain what sub-sections (14) and (15) mean? I have read sub-section (14) many times and the more I read it the less I understand this business of "land which is within 100 yards of the site". Sub-section (15), I am afraid, is much more obscure to me.
The purpose of sub-sections (14) and (15) is to prevent a person from evading the law by moving from one site to another. These portable huts or tents are quite a feature of present day holiday-making and persons could evade the law, if they chose to become difficult, by moving their huts a short distance. It is to prevent that moving that the sub-sections are inserted.
I should like to know what exactly is the meaning of this section. At the moment, I understand that local authorities have power under the existing law to establish baths or bathing places and to maintain them. What additional power is given under this section?
A great deal of this section is in the nature of consolidation. We have, however, extended the powers given to sanitary authorities under the section.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (c), page 20, line 42, to delete "which is not a bathing place or swimming bath" and substitute "where they think those appliances are likely to be of use".
This is a drafting amendment. It is considered that the wording of the amendment makes the intention of the sub-section clearer. There are stretches of water, such as quaysides, where bathing does not take place normally but where drowning accidents are likely to occur. It is considered that local authorities should have power to maintain lifebuoys, etc., at such places.
I move amendment No. 6:—
To delete sub-section (3) and insert the following two sub-sections—
(3) Where a by-law is made under sub-section (1) of this section in relation to any swimming bath, bathing place or wash house—
(a) such by-law shall be posted and kept posted at such swimming bath, bathing place or wash house by the sanitary authority by whom the by-law was made,
(b) if such sanitary authority fails or neglects to comply with paragraph (a) of this sub-section, such sanitary authority shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds and in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding £1 for each day on which the offence is continued.
(4) Where a by-law is made under sub-section (2) of this section in relation to any swimming bath or bathing place—
(a) such by-law shall be posted and kept posted at such swimming bath or bathing place by the owner thereof,
(b) if such owner fails or neglects to comply with paragraph (a) of this sub-section, such owner shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £5 and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding £1 for each day on which the offence is continued.
As drafted, the section imposes on the local authority the obligation to post by-laws and keep them posted at all swimming baths, whether owned by the local authority or not. It is felt that difficulty might be experienced by a local authority in carrying out its obligations in the case of a swimming bath not under its control and the amendment requires the local authority to keep by-laws posted in bathing places owned by them. In the case of other bathing places owned by private individuals, the obligation will rest on the owner.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 25, line 38, after "except" to insert "Sections 28 and 32 repealed by the Health Act, 1947, and".
Sections 28 and 32 of the Act of 1890 are repealed by the Health Act and it is considered desirable to include that fact in the present Bill in which the provisions of the Act of 1890 have been given general application. This amendment is designed to keep the Health Act and this Bill in line with each other so far as the continuance or the repeal of various provisions is concerned.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In paragraph (a), page 25, line 43, after "except" to insert "Section 50 repealed by the Health Act, 1947 and".
The same principle applies to this.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In paragraph (b), page 25, line 49, after "officer" to insert "under Section 73 of the Health Act, 1947."
The same principle also applies here. The amendment is in consequence of the division of the original Health Bill into two separate measures.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 26, in the third column of the entry relating to the Local Government Act, 1927, to insert "the First Schedule" before "the first four".
This has reference to the First Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1927, and the words "the First Schedule" were omitted from the Bill as first drafted. The Schedule has reference to the provisions of Section 2, which is being repealed.
This is the Schedule which restricts the use of public bathing places. I should like to know if under this Schedule it would be possible to make some provision for the safety of people bathing in this way. There are many portions of the sea coast which are really dangerous for anybody except an expert swimmer. I am just wondering whether it would be possible under this Schedule for the local authority or the sanitary authority rigidly to prohibit the use of portions of the sea coast, which are dangerous, except in some cases under licence. We all know that every year during the warm weather there is an enormous number of fatalities. While it might have been intended under the Schedule as drafted that that power should be taken, if it is not already in the Schedule I think that power should be taken to prohibit people bathing where there are dangerous currents, where the water is of unequal depth or where there are other factors which might lead to loss of life. I should also like to know whether this would apply to rivers as well as to the sea coast.
If the Deputy will look at item No. 1 of the Third Schedule— the prohibition of public bathing except in specified areas — he will see it is intended to apply to all public bathing places. If the Deputy will also look at Section 37 he will find very adequate measures for the provision of life-guards and life-saving equipment. The two provisions taken together will provide any necessary restriction that may be required.
I should like to support the plea made by Deputy Cogan as the matters set out in the Third Schedule are all matters for which provision may be made. The result might be that some local authority might omit to make such by-laws and then there could be no prohibition of bathing in a dangerous area. Section 37 provides only for life-guards. Deputy Cogan is anxious that the necessary by-laws should be made to prohibit bathing in these dangerous places so that the services of life-guards might not be necessary there.
Every recommendation will be made to local authorities to make these by-laws, but the whole question is permissive. They are not forced to do it but we shall make recommendations to them to do it.
Would the power of the local authority apply to ordinary rivers?
Under this, we were particularly careful to include rivers and all inland stretches of water. In fact, in every section that is provided for.
I have no wish to delay the passage of this measure which I think is a very important one and a very necessary one especially having regard to the fact that it deals with the question of piped water supplies which was left out of the Public Health Bill, but I do think it is a pity that this Bill which is so involved in many directions could not have been postponed for more nature consideration. I am not suggesting that anything very serious has happened or may happen but it is a pity I think that a measure which contains so much machinery of an involved nature should have to come before the House at this late stage of the session. I only want to say that the general principles of the measure are certainly very acceptable, but I hope that we have not hastily passed something which we shall have to amend when hardships occur.
