PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON)

I beg to move the first Amendment on today's Marshalled List. It is essentially a drafting Amendment and is designed to make even clearer what is in fact already the effect of the proviso to Clause 42, subsection (2). Clause 42 as a whole deals with forecourts. Subsection (1) deals with dangers, obstructions and inconveniences, and enables local authorities to require the owner or occupier of a forecourt to fence the forecourt or, inter alia, to remove anything on the forecourt which could be a source of danger, obstruction or inconvenience to the public.

Subsection (2), which has a different object in mind, enables a local authority to require the removal or alteration of a stall or other erection on a forecourt which is an eyesore or, in the words of the clause, "injurious to the amenities of the street". The proviso to subsection (2) provides that this power shall not apply to any stall or other erection which has been in position since the date on which this Bill was introduced on November 10 last. I am advised that the wording of the proviso already fulfils the object in mind℄to exempt stalls which were erected before the crucial date and which have remained in position ever since℄but the additional words now proposed will make this doubly clear. I beg to move.

§ LORD CHORLEY

Before the noble Lords puts the clause, I should like to make one or two remarks, largely with a view to obtaining an expression of opinion from the Minister responsible. This clause has given rise to a certain amount of interest among local authorities, and particularly as regards one of the local authority organisations; and it is not felt that the clause at the moment is sufficiently strong. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to set my doubts at rest. He has explained the object of the clause, which is in two parts. The first part is concerned to enable the local authority to require an owner or occupier of a forecourt to fence it from the street when that is necessary℄when something has been put outside for sale purposes, or something of that kind, which forms an obstruction or danger or inconvenience to the public. The experience of some of the local authorities that have been attempting to deal with this problem is that quite a small fence, of 12 or perhaps 18 inches high, is sufficient to deal with this problem and is the most satisfactory way of doing it. The clause as it stands at the moment is very vague, and we should like the Minister to indicate what is in the mind of the Department as to the proper way of dealing with this part of the problem.

The second subsection, again as the noble Lord explained, relates to erections on forecourts, such as stalls, which may be injurious to the amenities of the street. This is a rather different point, of course, from the question of danger, obstruction or something of that kind. Many of the local authorities feel that the strongest objection to these erections on forecourts from the amenity point of view arises in relation to vending machines℄which, as your Lordships will have noticed, have become very common during the last few years. They are used a great deal after the closing hours of the shops. These machines seem hardly to be caught by the words in subsection (2) as it stands, because it would obviously be possible to contend that a vending machine is not caught by the word "stall". If that is so, if this fear is a valid one, it seems that one of the main objectives of this clause will not be achieved. It would appear that something rather more definite in the nature of a specific power to the local authorities to get rid of these machines 5 should be included. I should very much like to know what the noble Lord feels on this particular part of the clause and what the policy of the Department will be; and also whether they are satisfied that the words which the clause already contains are adequate to handle the problem of these machines.

§ LORD BRECON

I am advised that the words that have been inserted here are sufficient to meet the needs. But after what the noble Lord has said, I think that had better say that I will have a look at this point before Report stage, and I will reply to him on that occasion.

§ LORD CHORLEY

I am very grateful to the noble Lord.

§ LORD BROUGHSHANE

This is a simple, straightforward Amendment designed to empower local authorities to defray, subject to certain limitations as to amount, the cost of urgent repairs to private streets. The Amendment would, in effect, bring the clause into line with model clause No. 34. It seems desirable that the local authorities should have these powers in order that urgent minor repairs may be carried out to private streets without delay. There seems no reason for departing from the model clause, and I therefore beg to move.

§ LORD BRECON

As I understand it, the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, has two objects. The first one is to provide expressly that the expenditure of the street works authority under this clause might℄not "must" ℄fall on the general rate fund. The Amendment proposes to insert the words of the model clause No. 34, but those words are inappropriate in the Bill for two reasons. First, the model clause is drafted solely in terms of municipal corporations which have a general rate fund. The clause applies to all street works authorities, an expression which includes 6 county councils who have a county fund, not a general rate fund. Secondly, under the Local Government Act, 1933, all expenditure of a local authority must be paid out of the appropriate general rate fund or county fund. It would therefore be wrong to include words in the clause to suggest that the local authority has a discretion in the matter. For these reasons, the proviso was deliberately omitted when the clause was drafted.

The second object of the Amendment is to place a limit on the expenditure of the street works authority on any given stretch of road (not more than £50 for each 100 yards of the street in any period of three consecutive years). The model clause contemplates a limit of this kind, but leaves a blank Where the actual amount is to be inserted. In practice, the limit inserted tin recent local Acts has varied widely from £10 to £75 per 100 yards. In the Somerset County Council Act, 1960, the 'proviso was omitted altogether, and this course has been followed in the Bill. It seems reasonable to leave it to the council's discretion. A financial limit on the power to deal with danger in streets seems undesirable. If thoroughgoing works (other than urgent repairs) are needed, the council still have the powers of Section 204 of the Highways Act, 1959, and the possibility that a council under this clause might carry out major works of reconstruction is very remote. In the case of authorities subject to district audit, the improper use of these powers would certainly be challenged. I cannot recommend that the Committee accept this Amendment.

§ LORD BROUGHSHANE

I thank the noble Lord for his very full statement. In view of what he has said as regards the powers contained in the Highways Act, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ LORD REA

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this Amendment, but I should like to support very strongly the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I imagine that many of us are able to give specific instances of where this sort of thing happens. I will take up only a few seconds of your Lordships' time to relate my own experiences in the Lake District where, at a very beautiful but hitherto not much visited lake in Wasdale, these bins have been put up for receiving rubbish. These receptacles are not emptied and it has fallen upon the conscience of the people living there to take time off from their work℄I would particularly refer to instructors of the Outward Bound Mountaineering School℄and go round in their own cars with dustbins to tidy up the mess, purely for the sake of the amenity of the country and under no obligation, because the point which the noble Lord has mentioned has not been brought into force. Therefore I should like to strongly support his Amendment.

§ LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I should like to add that this is not peculiar to Wasdale. Certainly in Langdale there was one of these 10 receptacles, which was a crying source of nuisance and about which comments were going all over the Lake District, and there was a similar abuse either in Borrowdale or at Buttermere, although I would not like to trust my memory about which. I strongly support this very valuable Amendment and hope that the Government will accept it.

§ LORD FARINGDON

I also should like to support this Amendment. But it is not necessary to go as far as the Lake country to see the abuse or misuse of these receptacles about which noble Lords have spoken. One has only to go, on the admittedly rare fine weekends, into London's parks in order to see litter littered to an extent which is indescribable, horrible and unspeakable, and, I think, not to be found anywhere else in this country or in the world. I would, however, make one minor criticism of the noble Lord's Amendment. I could wish that it not only provided for regular and timely clearance of receptacles, but also for receptacles of adequate size. This seems to me to be also extremely important. But I support the noble Lord's Amendment so far as it goes.

§ LORD MERRIVALE

I, too, support the Amendment of my noble friend, and should like to take the opportunity of asking the Minister whether it would not be possible to insert something at the next stage to ensure that these receptacles are provided with lids, some of which could be hinged and some removable. Those receptacles fitted to lampposts and other supports in the streets could possibly be fitted with hinged lids, as in Paris, where there is a slot in the lid for people wishing to deposit a cigarette box or something like that, and it is necessary to open the bin to insert any larger piece of rubbish.

With regard to my noble friend's Amendment, I think it would be useful if local authorities would pay attention to the need for instructing their men, when they are pouring the contents of dustbins into their vehicles, to take more care to see that litter is not deposited in the street or allowed to blow away in the wind. I think that such instructions would be worth considering, because this is a country in which we get a fair amount of wind and a good deal of 11 rubbish gets blown out of these bins. I warmly support my noble friend's Amendment.

§ LORD BRECON

Subsection (2) of the clause already makes it the duty of the county council, local authority or parish council, as the noble Lord has said, to make arrangements "for the regular emptying and cleansing" of any receptacle they provide or maintain, and it goes on to provide that all these types of local authorities shall have the necessary power to do this. The clause should thus prevent the possibility that a litter bin might be provided by, say, a parish council in the expectation that the rural district council, who already have powers to collect household refuse, would automatically empty it. I should not have thought there was any need to elaborate in unnecessary detail something which ought to be left to the common sense of all responsible local authorities. If an authority feels sufficiently strongly to see that a litter basket is provided, it is likely to feel equally strongly on the subject of its emptying.

§ LORD CHORLEY

But it does not.

§ LORD BRECON

If there is any default, the most effective way is for local people to complain to the council offices or to their elected members. It is difficult to believe that the addition of the words proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, would, in practice, affect the way in which local authorities carry out the powers given by the clause or increase the likelihood of their being forced to do so through legal action. My inclination is to ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment, but I appreciate the anxiety felt by my noble friend, Lord Conesford, and if he would be prepared not to press the Amendment now, I would undertake to study the problem further.

§ LORD DERWENT

I hope that my noble friend Lord Conesford will not be taken in by the soothing answer of my noble friend on the Front Bench. A regular collection may be once in six months; that means nothing. The other point is this. There is great pressure, particularly on the smaller local authorities℄rural district councils and so on℄to put up litter baskets, which are, in 12 fact, somewhat expensive for a small authority to put up. I know of cases where, under pressure from their own people, an authority have put up litter baskets, although they have warned the people that they have not the facilities for proper emptying, and exactly the situation arises as has been explained by my noble friend Lord Conesford. I do not know whether my noble friend is going to withdraw the Amendment now, but I hope that he will not let this Bill go through without allowing us to support him in some Amendment of this kind.

§ LORD CONESFORD

I am rather astonished that my noble friend the Minister, in reply to my Amendment, thought that it was too detailed. I expressly avoided putting in detail. I admit that I had thought, when I first decided to put down the Amendment, to prescribe a daily emptying; but I thought that I could then be accused of too much detail. However, what I have now suggested is a perfectly general principle: that the emptying shall be sufficiently frequent to ensure that no such receptacle or the contents thereof shall become a nuisance". What could be more reasonable and general than that? I fully appreciate that my drafting is the drafting of an amateur and that the skilful advisers of my noble friend may desire on Report stage some small Amendment of what I suggest, in order to make the Government entirely happy about the Amendment. But I suggest to the Committee that the best thing we can do, in view of the universal support that has been given to my Amendment, is to adopt it now whatever the Government may wish to do on the Report stage. Therefore, interpreting, as I think rightly, the wishes of the Committee, I do not wish to withdraw my Amendment.

§ LORD SILKIN

Before the Amendment is put, may I say that I have great sympathy with the noble Lord's Amendment, as I think everyone who has spoken has. I would not accept the fact that it is too detailed. But, after all, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has given an assurance that he will study the matter, presumably on the basis of trying to meet the wishes of the Committee, if at all possible. I should not have intervened but for the suggestion 13 which is rather novel, that whenever a Minister gives an undertaking to study an Amendment the right thing is to include the Amendment in the Bill by passing it and then amend the Amendment at a later stage. I should be very happy if that were the position, but I think the probabilities are that the result would be that Ministers would be very chary of giving such an undertaking in future. I should have thought that the noble Lord has achieved his purpose in getting an assurance from the Minister that the matter will be studied; and, of course, he can put down his Amendment again.

§ LORD CONESFORD

I am extremely anxious to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if I can. The reason why I suggested to the Committee℄and I think the Committee agreed with me℄that it would be a good thing to put this Amendment in was that the Minister did not go so far as to say that he was going to amend the clause. If the Minister had accepted the principle that something on the lines of my Amendment must go in, then of course I should have adopted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. But, as I understood the Minister's speech, he was very doubtful indeed whether any amendment of the clause whatsoever was required. I had satisfied the Committee, I think, in all quarters that some addition to this clause is required. The Minister was unable to say that there was anything wrong with my Amendment, except that he thought it was unnecessary and rather detailed. In those circumstances, I thought it would be advisable that, when this matter comes before the House on Report stage, it should at least embody the wishes of the Committee as expressed on the Committee stage. It was for those reasons, and not because I had any lack of faith in the promise of the Minister to consider the matter℄of course I accepted that he would℄that I thought I should press the Amendment. I have satisfied the Committee that an Amendment is necessary; no criticism of my wording of the Amendment has been produced in any quarter, and with the general intention of making the proceedings of this Committee useful, I mean to press the Amendment.

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

I was 14 hoping that my noble and learned friend would perhaps await the results of my noble friend's promise to look at this matter again. My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford has made one indisputable point℄namely, that the word "regular" does not necessarily imply any degree of frequency. That is a point which nobody can deny, and certainly I should not try to deny it. On the other hand (although I am afraid that I do not know a great deal about these local government matters), I think there might be some difficulty℄I do not know, and it is one of the things I should like to consider℄if, a duty having been imposed on a local authority, a provision were inserted which said simply that it shall be the duty of the local authority to perform its duty properly and not to effect any other sanction to them. I should myself think that that is worth investigating. I fully accept what my noble and learned friend has said: that it is not sufficient that collections should be regular if they are not also frequent. I hope that, with that assurance, he will allow this matter to be studied, in the knowledge that if nothing satisfactory to your Lordships emerges from that study he will not have in any way impaired his position, which he has made quite clear.

§ LORD SALTOUN

There is one point I should like to put to my noble friend the Leader of the House, and it is this. This Bill originates in this House and it is our duty to make it as perfect as possible before it goes to another place. If my noble friend withdraws his Amendment now, what opportunity will be given in this House for producing a proper Amendment upon this point? I realise that my noble friend can put this Amendment down on the Report stage, but the noble Viscount who speaks for the Government has quarrelled with the wording of it, for some reason which I do not quite understand. It means that if my noble friend puts the Amendment down again on Report, he is more or less compelled to put down an Amendment which is faulty in form, and that leaves only the Third Reading to improve upon it. How would the noble Viscount meet that point, having full regard to the duty and the rights of this House?

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

As regards the duty of this House, I am sure that 15 both the Government and my noble and learned friend℄whom I would not accept as being an amateur in this connection at all; I think he lost his amateur status a long time ago℄will see whether we can give effect to this point, some part of which I have already accepted to be a good one, and the House in its collective wisdom will be in a position on Report to pass judgment on the matter. Certainly, if the Government feel that it is proper to amend the clause in the sense which I have indicated, that it is feasible to do so and in accordance with the ordinary requirements of local government, they would put their own Amendment down. I cannot foreshadow what it would be. Obviously, if we do not put down an Amendment we shall have to justify our not doing so, and I am sure the House will be able to pass judgment on that.

§ EARL ATTLEE

Does that mean that the Government are persuaded that some amendment of this clause is needed? That is the point.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Perhaps I should not have intervened so fully, but I felt that perhaps my noble friend was being a little hard pressed on the matter and that he might like to take further counsel. I have said all I can of my own knowledge and wisdom, such as it is, which is that I was persuaded that my noble and learned friend had made one point℄which I thought was not only good, but desirable℄that "frequent" and "regular" collections were not the same thing, and that they ought to be both.

§ LORD CONESFORD

If I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has put his finger on the exact point. At the present moment, Her Majesty's Government have not admitted that any amendment of this clause is required at all. This Committee, if I rightly interpret its view, is virtually unanimously of the opinion that an Amendment roughly on the lines of my Amendment is necessary. I am very much puzzled why Her Majesty's Government do not accept my Amendment. If they find that there is something

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I am sure that the last thing I should ever suggest to the House is that we should not try to improve Bills to the best of our ability. All I was suggesting was that, as the Committee have indicated their opinion quite clearly, the Minister (who knows a great deal more about it than I do, just listening to the debate) has indicated that he will take the clause back to his right honourable friend with an indication of the Committee's view. That was all my noble and learned friend was seeking at this stage. I would respectfully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said: that the really sensible thing to do is to realise that the Government have noted the view of the Committee and recognised tie validity of the arguments put forward, and will seek in some way to give effect to them. The only reason why I cannot give a more definite assurance is that the matter is not wholly in my hands, and I claim even less than my noble and learned friend to be an expert draftsman on matters of this kind. I hope that with that assurance he will feel that the best way is to seek the experts' advice, or the advice of those who he frankly has said are experts, and see what we can do to give effect to his desires.

§ LORD BRECON

I am fully in agreement with the purpose of the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has just moved. I am advised, however, that this might not be the best way of achieving the object we both have in mind, and if he would be agreeable to withdrawing this particular Amendment I would undertake to put down some alternative words at the Report stage.

§ LORD LATHAM

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD BRECON

I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Gainsborough, that there are anomalies here. This fact was fully appreciated when the Bill was drafted, but it is extremely difficult to avoid anomalies when various penalties have been imposed in a large number of Acts and at different times. The figure of 40s. in this particular instance was adopted because it appears in local Acts at this point. Unfortunately, the figure of £10 which the noble Earl suggests is not free from anomaly either. I should like to suggest that we deal with this difficulty in the best way we can in the circumstances. The offence referred to in subsection (10) is that of removing or damaging a litter basket or a notice board. Section 289 of the Local Government Act, 1933, deals with a related matter and refers to the destruction or disfigurement of notice boards, advertisements, placards or notices, and it provides for a penalty of £5. If one wished to depart from the local Act precedent on which this subsection is based and drop the figure of 40s. then I think we ought to adopt the penalty under Section 289 of the 1933 Act for a similar offence. If this solution commends itself, I will put down an Amendment to this effect on the Report stage.

§ THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I feel sure that what he has said will go some way towards meeting the matter. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD OGMORE

I should like to put another point of view. I have a good deal of sympathy with this clause for a reason which will commend itself to the noble Lord, the Minister in charge of the Bill, he being an old Rugby forward from Ebbw Vale, which is a friendly rival of my old club, Bridgend. Some years ago in my own town the professional sport of Rugby League came along and took our ground, a ground which me had had for very many years. The club is now about 80 years old and is one with which both my father and my grandfather were connected and of which I am at the moment, and have been for some years, Patron.

In South Wales the Rugby Club forms an integral part of the life of the community, second only, perhaps, to the religious life. I am not sure that it is always second; sometimes, about the time of the England-Wales match, I believe they are about equal. When we lost our ground it was a staggering blow to the life of the community in the little market town where I was born. We looked around and finally the council allowed us to play on the recreation ground. It was very kind of them and we appreciated it tremendously and managed to keep the club going; but we had no exclusive use of the ground. The result was that normally, even during a game, except for two or three occasions a year, we had no right to exclude others from the ground. We could not charge people to go in and we had to pick up all the paraphernalia of the game, the footboards around the pitch, afterwards. We could not put up any sort of stand, however flimsy. Indeed, it was only through the tremendous efforts of voluntary supporters of the club that we kept going at all.

Eventually, I am glad to say, we got our ground back. Professional football did not take on and had to go, and to-day, as the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, knows, the club is third in the Welsh 24 League, following immediately behind Cardiff. We produced two members of the Welsh XV that played the South Africans and beat England, one being Ken Richards who, as those of your Lordships who follow the sport will know, played a masterly game and was the architect of victory. I mention this to show that this power is very important and that in conditions of that kind, which may happen anywhere, it is highly desirable that the council shall have the right to allow one team not only to play on the ground but also, in certain circumstances, to have the exclusive use of it.

I admit that this power should be used only in such circumstances as make it desirable, for we do not want to make it a very common practice; but I am certain that it would not be common. It would apply only in cases where it is really necessary, and only then would this power be used by the local authority. With that cautionary tale of my own club, therefore, I would support the Government in this measure, and I hope the Minister will resist any attempts to do away with the clause.

§ LORD SHEPHERD

Like my noble friend, Lord Silkin, I await with some anxiety an indication from the Government of what are their intentions there, because where there are recreation grounds which have perhaps tennis courts or bowling greens I can visualise that a local authority, under this provision, could hand over the whole of those courts or greens to some club or set of individuals. That is my understanding at the present moment. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Government, but reading the clause as it now is I can see that that is possible. I feel I should draw the attention of the Committee to Clause 48. While this power is given to local authorities, no protection is given to the public by allowing them to protest.

The Committee will see that Clause 49 (7) provides that the local authority must advertise their intention in the newspapers, and presumably an inquiry could result from that action. But when we are dealing with Clause 48 there is no such provision, so that local people would have no opportunity to protest. They might even be unaware that some of their recreation grounds were being taken away from them for the use of a 25 private club. They might have no idea that that was happening, and even if they knew of it they would have no opportunity of taking any action other than bringing pressure upon their local councillor. I certainly wait with anxiety to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, can tell us regarding this clause, but I believe that as it stands we should oppose it.

§ LORD FARINGDON

It is with some hesitation that I rise to differ from my noble friend, Lord Silkin. I hope the Government will maintain this clause. I think it is a reasonable and proper power to give to local authorities, and I am amazed by the suspicion that local authorities are likely to exaggerate in any way in their use of it. The contrary is far more likely. I should be far more anxious lest they should not use this power as widely as they might and should.

§ LORD HAWKE

I do not always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, opposite, but this time he has expressed my sentiments precisely. What on earth are we going to leave to local govern-men t to decide if we are not to permit them to decide about letting a football pitch to a recognised club or leaving it for desultory bands of boys to play upon? I believe it would be a gross and unwarrantable interference with the powers of local government if we were not to leave them to do this kind of thing.

§ LORD CHORLEY

I think a good deal can be said on both sides here and I do not wish to take any particular part in that discussion, but it occurred to me, in discussion with my noble friend, Lord Faringdon, that under subsection (3) (b) a local authority will not be permitted to give the exclusive use of: more than one-quarter of the total area of all the parks and pleasure grounds provided by them or under their management and control. If we are dealing with one of the large authorities who have a number of parks and pleasure-grounds it might be possible for them to hand over the whole of one park in this way, which clearly would not, I think, be wise or advisable. Is this a wrong interpretation? I shall be glad to have the noble Lord's view about that.

§ LORD CONESFORD

If I understand the clause rightly, there is a double limitation. It must not be more than one-third of the area of any park (that is under the paragraph (a)) and it must not be more than one-quarter of the total area of all the parks and pleasure-grounds provided by the local authority or under their management and control; so it is a dual limitation. I rise only because I have received a communication, as I think have other noble Lords, from a society which speaks with a good deal of authority on these subjects, the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society; and the point on which they are particularly unhappy is what they believe to be the insufficiency of the limitation in paragraph (b) of subsection (3): the limitation of a quarter of the total area. This Society from their experience are eager that, instead of the figure of one quarter, there should be a figure of one-eighth. I think that the Committee may like to have before them this considered view of the Society.

§ LORD SILKIN

Before the noble Lord replies, may I say that I thought I had made it clear that I was not against the principle at all, and therefore the football club in South Wales of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would have been quite safe, in my view, and I should not object to it. What I do object to is that on the reading of this clause it is possible to let the whole of the available recreational grounds to clubs.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I do not think it is.

§ LORD SILKIN

It is, if you read it carefully; not the whole of the park itself but the whole of that portion of the park which is allocated for games. These limitations do not relate to the portion of the park available for games only but to the total area of the park. My criticism would really be met if there were some limitation on the proportion of the area for games which could be set aside for clubs, so as to ensure that at all times there was some available recreational land for persons who were not members of clubs.

§ LORD AMULREE

I should like to say one word in support of this Amendment. I have seen the danger that can occur in Hyde Park, over most of which 27 the public could walk once upon a time, if not over the entire park. I have seen areas reserved, for quite proper reasons: places where people can putt and places at the Serpentine where people can undress and bathe. One can no longer walk right round the Serpentine, as I could when I was young. There is another part of the north of the Park reserved as a playground for children. Therefore, I think one should be extremely careful not to give powers like this too widely, because in time we might see more of the parks being taken away, though for quite proper reasons, and it means that the general public have less.

§ LORD LUKE

I think I sense what is the difficulty at the back of the mind of the noble Lard, Lord Silkin; that is, the principle of what happens to the remainder of the park we are talking about. When we have allowed a third to be earmarked for organised games, how are we to know what unorganised games (if I may call them that) can be played? I think that is the principle of the thing.

§ LORD BRECON

The main purpose of this clause is to extend certain powers concerning the management of parks and pleasure grounds which are contained in Section 76 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, and Section 56 of the Public Health Act, 1925. Under these Acts local authorities may already exclude the public from parts of parks set aside for particular games and they may charge for the use of those areas by the individuals or teams playing. What this clause permits, in effect, is an arrangement under which a local club may regularly have the use of a cricket or football pitch, or the bowling green or some of the tennis courts, together with changing-room accommodation and facilities for refreshments. Some regular arrangement is necessary if a club is to be able to settle its fixture list in advance. No one will question that some games can hardly be played seriously except on an organised basis and in an area from which non-players are excluded. I think we must remember that the people who form the clubs and play there are the public; they are not separate from the others.

28 If I understand the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and other noble Lords correctly, I think their chief fear is that lands and buildings may be removed from public enjoyment even when they are not being used for organised games℄subject, of course, to the area limitations contained in subsection (3). On this it must be recalled that some permanent restriction on the public use of parks is necessarily involved when local authorities provide facilities for certain kinds of sports and games. Bowling greens, tennis courts℄we cannot let the public wander around tennis courts, even when people are not playing, but they can go and play tennis there℄and athletic tracks, for instance, are normally closed except to people who have paid to use them for their specialised purposes.

The first question, therefore, is whether there is any objection in principle to sports facilities being made available to clubs and not to isolated individuals and to the exclusion of the public while those facilities are required by the clubs. It is difficult to believe that this is seriously contested. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, spoke about Rugby clubs in South Wales. My own club, in which I played over 30 years ago, played on a pitch that is in a park at Abergavenny. They still play. They have it for use for Saturday games at the present moment. It is this sort of provision that has to be made, subject to the safeguard of one-third of any park or a quarter of all parks. I have noted what my noble friend Lord Conesford has said about his having a letter to say that people who are concerned with this question think it should be one-eighth. I will have a look at that point.

The real problem reduces itself to this, therefore: should we try to write into this clause some words to the effect that pitches, playing fields, refreshment rooms, et cetera, should, so far as is practicable, be available to the public when they are not actually being used by a club? If I have correctly summarised the main grounds for the objections mentioned by noble Lords, and by Lord Silkin in particular, I think we should not find it impossible to meet the point that the noble Lord has raised. If he would agree to withdraw his objection I would certainly explore the practicability of tabling an Amendment on Report stage to this effect.

§ LORD FARINGDON

Could the noble Lord give an answer to a question which arises from a point made by my noble friend Lord Chorley? I fully take the point that it is one-third of the area of any park or, alternatively, one quarter of the total. It is not stated "whichever should be the less".

§ LORD CONESFORD

May I suggest that both apply? We say shall not empower a local authority to permit at one and the same time the exclusive use of more than one third of the area of any park… or more than one quarter of the total area… Both limitations must be satisfied.

§ LORD FARINGDON

I thought that that was so and I suddenly had a doubt.

§ LORD BRECON

It is so.

§ LORD SHEPHERD

I am much obliged for having heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brecon. However, I am still concerned. I am thinking of a recreation ground where I used to live where they had about a dozen tennis courts. As I understand it, it would be possible for the local authority, if they wished, to give these tennis courts exclusively for the use of a local club, say on Saturdays and Sundays, which means that anybody who was not a member of the club would not have access on a Saturday or a Sunday. That may be the judgment of the council. I think it would be wrong that that facility which has been built up in a recreation ground should be handed over exclusively to a club and that the public should be denied completely any access to it, unless, of course, the local authority were to provide further facilities. As I see it, what we want to do is to make our recreation grounds available to as many people as possible. We may lose that if we give exclusive rights ℄and the public know they are exclusive rights℄to a club. In a club one can quickly fill up the fixtures list. At times you can play tennis or golf on Saturday or Sunday with regular members, and the not-so-regular members do not get a chance to play. think we should resist anything that will deny the public at least a general access to the facilities in these recreation grounds.

§ LORD STONHAM

I wonder whether, before the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, 30 replies to my noble friend, he would consider one other aspect of the matter, arising particularly out of the assurance he offered to my noble friend Lord Silkin. It is not merely a case in every instance of local recreation grounds with buildings and facilities provided by the local authorty. There are examples where the local authority provide the land and give a local club permission to put buildings on it. They come to an agreement that it will be for a period of years. I have in mind, for example, the Taunton Town Football Club, where it is local authority land and where they put up buildings. There are two points arising from that. First, this step was not taken without its being very thoroughly canvassed in the town and in the town council, and we must have regard to that fact.

The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said that local authorities have not many powers left: I have heard it said that they have nothing to lose but their drains. But here is a case where a scheme has been thoroughly canvassed and local councillors have thoroughly considered local opinion. Surely they have a right in such matters. If the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, is going to consider an arrangement in this clause whereby, when a particular club is not using the facilities, the public shall have access, I would point out that in the case that I have cited it would be wholly impracticable. There the buildings themselves do not belong to the local authority, so that it would be wholly wrong, to suggest that the public should have access when the club is not using them. So it is not as easy as the noble Lord thinks. When he considers this matter, will he consider in particular a case of that kind?

§ LORD OGMORE

I should like to say something on the same lines as those followed by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I think the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, wants to be a little careful before he accepts the views expressed against this particular clause. I say that for two reasons. First, there is exclusive use of the portion of land itself. have already indicated the trouble we had to go to in Bridgend, when, after every game (we played twice a week), we had to move everything off. If anybody is to be allowed to use the ground when a particular club is not intending to 31 use it, it may mean that the ground will be cut up terribly. The club may be paying a great deal of money to keep that ground in good order, with a groundsman or two, and they would be paying a great deal of money to keep it in order so that anyone could come along and play on it without paying a brass bean, and possibly spoiling the ground. Secondly, children and so on may damage the posts and the various impedimenta that there are around the ground.

The second point is as to the building, the pavilion. Here the club, if there is a club, must have exclusive use, because all its gear would be in the building. There would be the equipment of the players℄the football boots, and all the rest of it℄as well as the flags, and so on. There cannot be anything but exclusive use of a building. You cannot have other people going into a building where there is hundreds of pounds worth of the club's equipment. I think, therefore, that, so far as paragraphs (2) (a) and (2) (b) are concerned℄and particularly (2) (b)℄the Minister should consider very carefully before he gives way. He knows as well as anybody (because he used to play for Ebbw Vale, which is a club of the type I am talking about) that in South Wales there is often only one piece of land available in the industrial area, which piece has very often been made by levelling a tip. If a club ℄it may be an absolutely first-class club; as, indeed, Ebbw Vale is℄has to use a ground which anybody else can use on all the days on which the club is not playing, then it will not be a first-class club very much longer℄that I can assure your Lordships. So I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will resist any attempt to "water down" this clause.

§ LORD LUKE

With the greatest respect, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has got it quite right. As I understand it, many of these grounds and pavilions are played on and used by many clubs and by schools. It is not a question of an exclusive use by any one club. I have seen all this expensive equipment in pavilions, and so forth, with wardens and so on, to look after it, to see that no damage is done. These grounds are being used by all sorts of clubs, and not by one alone.

§ LORD SILKIN

The noble Lord has given an undertaking that he will look at this question again from the point of view of ensuring that the general public ℄and I mean the general public other than those people who are members of clubs℄are not deprived of all facilities for games and recreation. I think that the clause can be appropriately amended so as to ensure that. It seems to me that all that is needed is a further condition having regard to the amount of recreational land that would be left, and not merely to other open space. On that assurance℄and perhaps it would be helpful if, in this case, the noble Lord would allow me to have a word with him on this subject before he puts the Amendment down℄I should be very happy to withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD BRECON

Certainly. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for what he has just said. I do not think we can legislate for every possible condition that exists in these parks under local government authority. I think that what Lord Silkin has in mind in the Amendment is as to the exclusive use of this land for a game℄and I think "exclusive" means that if they want to play a game of football then it is exclusive while they play that game of football. Personally, I have very great faith in local authorities; and, so far, I have not heard of any objection throughout the country as to the misuse of the powers they already have. But I will give Lord Silkin an undertaking to consider the point that he has raised, and also to see whether we can meet the point that he has made: that the public shall have the use of the ground when it is not being used by the club.

§ LORD SILKIN

It was not quite that. I do not necessarily mean that. I take the point that it may not always be convenient; but what I mean is that you do not part with the whole of your recreational land to clubs, but leave some of it for the general public. However, I think we can talk this thing over.

§ LORD BRECON

May I just add that it is limited by subsection (3)?

§ LORD SILKIN

I do not think it is.