0.8
1961.
981
& Clack Col
16.060
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
गय
Reference:-
www.C.O. 537
36
OUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITH COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH - NOT TO BE
RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
0.
16060
Mr Shelton Hooper:-
A.
..
A.
62 20
1
They make recommendations, and if the majority of the
Council dont accept the recommendations, then the
recommendation is thrown out, but these discussions
take place in public, before the representatives of
the Press.
I want to take you back again to the question about
cubicles. I suggested to you that the words in the
original Ordinance were one and the same practically ?
No, they are not.
ib obl
I suggested that to you, and you said they were not.
Well now, I would just like to read you an extract from
Hansard, when the Attorney General moved the second
reading of the Public Health and Huildings Ordinance,
23 of 1903, "Considerable difficulty has been found in
practice in working the Ordinance, with respect to the
interpretation that at present is attached to the
meaning of the words "reom" and "cubicle". Hitherto
these words have had pretty well the same meaning, but
by the amendment proposed to the Bill, sach would have
its own meaning attached to it". That is what I meant
just now. Does that cause you to alter your opinion at
all, with regard to what was in the original Ordinance
No 1
I shall have to compare them. The point was this, that
"room" in the original Ordinance, included cubicle. A
cubicle was a room used for a special purpose, that is
to say, an enclosure was only a qubicle when it was used.
for sleeping purposes. If it was enclosed for any other
purpose, it was still a room, but not a cubicle.
I want to call your attention to an extract I will 16.062,
read from your evidence. "Mr Shelton Hooper:- Now, Dr
Clark, up to nine months ago, didnt you think that the