CO537-(36-37) — Page 103

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