View report page

59
draughtsmen having omitted to insert the words " and section 38 of the Public
Health (London) Act, 1891," after the words " section 22 of the Public Health
Acts Amendment Act, 1890," in the following section :—
factory and Workshop Act, 1895, Section 35.
" (I) In every place where section 22 of the Public Health Acts Amendment
Act, 1890, is not in force, every factory or workshop shall be
provided with sufficient and suitable accommodation in the way of
sanitary conveniences, having regard to the number of persons
employed in or in attendance at the factory or workshop, and also
where persons of both sexes are employed, or intended to be employed,
or in attendance, with proper separate accommodation for persons of
each sex.
" (2) A factory or workshop in which there is a contravention of this
section shall be deemed not to be kept in conformity with the
principal Act"—
It is evident that this section only applies to places where section 22 of the
Public Health Amendment Act, 1890, is not enforced, and that in those places
it is the duty of II. M. Inspector to make good the oversight or omission of the
sanitary authority, by obtaining a penalty from the owner or occupier of the
factory ; but in order to enforce carrying out the section it appears to be
necessary for H.M Inspector to fall back upon section 4 of the 1878 Act, and
give notice in writing to the sanitary authority. The omission of the Public
Health (London) Act, 1891, from the above-mentioned section 35 makes it
appear that the penalty for the non-provision of sanitary conveniences in
factories may be enforced either by the sanitary authority or by the factory
inspector in London; but it reasonable to expect that the owner or occupier
should have had notice to provide the accommodation required before being
prosecuted for a penalty, and this coincides with the procedure of
sanitary authorities. The intention therefore of section 35 of the Act
of 1895 appears to be to empower H.M. Inspector to take action only
in default of the sanitary authority. This is explicitly stated with
regard to Districts where section 22 of the Public Health Acts Amendment
Act, 1890, is not in force, but not in regard to London ; but as section 38 of
the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, is almost word lor word the same as
section 22 of the Public Health Acts' Amendment Act, 1890, it would appear
that in this case also the Legislature contemplated that only in default should
action be taken by H.M. Inspector in London, and it is difficult to conceive
that two different methods of procedure should have been intended to be adopted
in a matter of this kind, one without and the other within London. Perhaps
the parliamentary draughtsmen may intentionally have omitted to mention
section 38 of the Public Health (London) Act 1891, in section 35 of the last
Factory and Workshop Act inasmuch as the London Act, not being an
adoptive Act, there could not be any place in London where it was not in force.
To briefly summarise, in London it appears to be the duty of H.M. Inspectors
of Factories to recover penalties for the non-provision of sanitary conveniences
in factories, and to give notice in writing to sanitary authorities for the
remedies to be applied, to require to be informed by sanitary authorities of