HC Deb 02 June 1881 vol 261 cc1966-78

(Mr. Dodson.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 26th May.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 16 (Annual Report to Local Government Board).

Amendment proposed, In line 7, page 41, to leave out "his proceedings," and insert "the proceedings of himself and of the other inspectors under this Act."—(Mr. Dodson.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'his proceedings' stand part of the Clause."

MR. BIGGAR

said, they had to meet at 2 o'clock to-morrow—within 12 hours from then—and, considering the time the Chairman had already been in the Chair, it was only reasonable that they should report Progress. He was opposed to legislating at that hour of the morning.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)

MR. DODSON

ventured to hope that the Committee would not accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Cavan. The Bill, as he had said before, was one in which a great deal of interest was felt on both sides of the House. There had been no objection taken to it throughout, except on points of detail; and those points, he thought, could be very rapidly disposed of if the hon. Member would allow them to proceed.

MR. R. POWER

said, he would suggest that Progress should be reported at 2 o'clock.

EARL PERCY

said, that the Bill had great interest for many English Members, if it had not for Irish ones, and it would be a great convenience to them to proceed with its consideration.

MR. DODSON

hoped the Bill might be got through before 2 o'clock; but he should be sorry to pledge himself to the exact moment. He trusted the hon. Member for Cavan would consent to withdraw his Motion.

MR. BIGGAR

was disposed to let the Committee proceed; but there was one clause which raised a very important principle—namely, that in respect to joint liability for the acts of a single person. That clause, he thought, could not be taken at that late hour.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the words 'his proceedings' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Proposed words substituted.

MR. DODSON

proposed to add, at the end of the preceding Amendment, the words "who shall furnish him with a detailed account of the number of inspections of works in their districts."

Amendment agreed to; words added.

EARL PERCY

proposed the further addition to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment of the words "and the recorded escapes of acid gases in all such works."

Amendment agreed to; words added.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 20 (Recovery of fines for offences against Act in county court).

MAJOR NOLAN

proposed, as an Amendment, to omit all reference to Ireland, on the ground that, in many respects, the Bill was not applicable to Ireland, there being no manufactories in many parts of the country.

MR. DODSON

said, the Amendment did not properly arise on that clause.

MAJOR NOLAN

pointed out that the clause gave power to recover fines in Ireland. Such a stringent Bill was not required for Ireland, although in some parts of England, such as the Black Country, the escape of hydrochloric gas caused much mischief. He moved to omit from line 16 to line 20.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, to leave out from the word "In," in line 16, to the word "bills" in line 20, both inclusive.—(Major Nolan.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. O'SHEA

observed, that no satisfactory answer had been given to the proposal.

MR. DODSON

said, the answer was that in the first Alkali Act, which was in force at the present time, it was provided that in Ireland all penalties, except penalties against a special rule, might be recovered in the Civil Court at the instance of the Inspector. The present Bill was a Consolidation Bill, and the clause only provided for the recovery of fines in the same terms as in the Act which had been in force since 1863.

MAJOR NOLAN

believed this to be a more severe Bill than the Act of 1863. It was five or six times more severe as to the volume of gas escaping.

MR. HEALY

asked if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) would be willing to exclude all towns in Ireland of under 50,000 inhabitants? The proposed regulations would crush all attempts at future manufactures.

MR. DODSON

said, the Bill was not intended to apply simply to populous places, for it was intended to protect crops and vegetation. It was introduced originally at the suggestion of residents near works, especially cultivators of land. He doubted how far the suggestion could be carried out; but if the hon. Member would wait for the Report, he would endeavour to ascertain how far that would be possible.

MR. O'SHEA

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would listen to the words of wisdom from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and would see that the Irish Members desired to encourage manufactures in Ireland. The cultivators of land in Ireland had made no complaints of fumes from alkali works, for one reason, because there were no alkali works there; and it would be time enough to restrict when there was something to restrict. There were, unfortunately, large tracts of land in Ireland on which nothing useful grew; and he wished the hon. Member for Swansea, or other great chemical manufacturers and smelters, to be given every encouragement to plant useful works in the midst of them.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

wished hon. Members opposite, who said they had spoken words of wisdom, would speak words of mercy. There were places in Lancashire where people died through the fumes from alkali works getting into the water; and he thought hon. Members from Ireland might desire to protect life in that country as well as in England.

DR. COMMINS

said, that there were very few alkali works in Ireland; but there were some cement works, and chemical manure works, which were included in the Bill. There were also some small works, such as sulphuric acid works, which he did not think did much harm, but which would be interfered with and crushed by the Bill. Nobody in Ireland asked for or desired the Bill.

MAJOR NOLAN

approved of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford. (Mr. Healy), and said that if the right hon. Gentleman would insert a clause to that effect he should be content. The Irish Members were quite willing that the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) should have what legislation he liked for Lancashire, if he would let them have what they wished. They had good air in Ireland; they wanted industries, and did not wish to be restricted by legislation, or to have their money wasted on Inspectors. This Bill was one of those unfortunate pieces of legislation in which the Government started from a different point than the Irish Members, and asked them to work up to it. If the right hon. Gentleman would exclude Ireland from the Bill, except two or three large towns, he would withdraw any opposition.

MR. CALLAN

hoped the suggestion would be acceded to. They did not want England to protect them; they wanted to get some obnoxious industries into Ireland; and he hoped the wishes of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) and other English Members would not overweight the wishes of the Irish people.

MR. HIBBERT

said, if Ireland was excluded, there would be no legislation for Ireland at all. Ireland was now under the Acts in operation, and he did not see how they could go back from those Acts. The suggestion was not one to which the Government could accede off-hand, and, after all, the works in England were prepared and willing to be placed under the Bill. If they were under the Bill, and Ireland was not, great advantages would be given to Irish manufacturers. The Government were, of course, willing to do all they could to promote the industries of Ireland; but he thought it would be more practical for the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) and the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to prepare some Amendment on Report, and let his (Mr. Hibbert's) right hon. Friend consider it.

MAJOR NOLAN

thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) had given up their case when he said the proposal would give great advantages to Ireland; but if they got a definite promise from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) that all towns in Ireland of under 50,000 inhabitants should be left out he would withdraw his opposition. If not, he must press his Amendment to a division.

MR. BIGGAR

could not see how the proposal could be refused. The manure works in Belfast were very objectionable, and it was desirable that they should be removed; but some inducement must be given to the owners to move them.

MR. DODSON

said, he really could not off-hand undertake to give a definite promise. The proposal had been suddenly sprung upon him.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, it was made on the first night of considering the Bill.

MR. DODSON

replied, that on the first night the hon. and gallant Member raised the question whether Ireland should be excluded, and several Irish Members were strongly of opinion that it should be included. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) certainly was one. No proposal was made for the exclusion of certain parts, and he could not be expected to accede to this proposal on the spur of the moment without having an opportunity of considering it. If the hon. and gallant Member would put an Amendment on the Paper for Report he would give a fair and impartial consideration to it.

MR. CALLAN

said, that, in order to insure due consideration of the matter, he would move that Progress be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(MR. Callan.)

MR. DODSON

hoped the Committee might be allowed to proceed, and not be asked to suspend Progress on account of this proposal, which was now made for the first time. It was unreasonable to ask those who made the proposal to put it into proper shape to be considered on Report. He hoped the Motion to report Progress would be withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

said, he would admit that, technically speaking, the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying this proposal was new; but it was not new that the Irish Members had certain objections to the Bill, but the Government had done nothing to meet their views, and had tried to push the Bill through as hard as they could. They must bring up their objections when they could, whether they sprung them upon the Government or not; and he hoped this Amendment would bring the Government to see the importance or paying some regard to the wishes of the Irish Members. If the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) persisted with his Motion he should support him; but if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) would give some definite promise he would suggest to his hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion. Perhaps a conference might take place between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan), so that the Bill might then be run through.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the clause merely provided for the recovery of the penalties. He suggested that the Amendment should be raised at its proper place, at the end of the 27th clause, and thus allow them to make progress.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, it was evidently necessary, if it was proposed to bring the larger towns in Ireland under the provisions of the Bill, that some such Amendment as was now proposed should be made in the clause. He would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) whether he would agree to excuse the rest of Ireland with the exception of Belfast and Dublin and Cork. The only argument he had heard at all against such a proceeding was that which was offered by the right hon. Gentleman himself—namely, that the, trade of England would be unfairly handicapped by the advantage which the manufacturers in Ireland would derive from being excluded from the Bill. He had looked through the Bill to see what advantage would arise, and he failed to see in what way Irish manufacturers would gain an advantage. Unless there was a distinct proof between this and Report that the English manufacturers would be unfairly handicapped, it would not be too much to ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree to the limitation to the larger towns of Ireland.

MR. DODSON

suggested that they should be allowed to go through the Bill as it stood, and when they got to the Schedule report Progress. The hon. Gentleman could then still propose his Amendment in Committee. He (Mr. Dodson) could not be expected to give an answer in the matter off-hand; but he was quite ready to give it a fair consideration.

MR. CALLAN

trusted the Committee on the Bill would not be taken again before Monday week.

MR. DODSON

said, he had no objection to put the Committee down for the Monday after the Recess.

MAJOR NOLAN

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to

Clause 21 (Further provisions as to recovery of fines in county court).

On Motion of Mr. DILLWYN, Amendment made in page 10, line 31, by leaving out "ten," and inserting "twenty-one."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 (Discharge of owner on conviction of actual offender) agreed to.

Clause 23 (Service of notices).

On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Amendment made in page 11, line 34, by leaving out from "or" to "owner" in line 37, and inserting "the owner or at his residence or works."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 (Complaint by sanitary authority in cases of nuisance).

On Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 12, line 17, leave out from "The" to "Act," in line 22, inclusive.

In page 12, at end add— The expression 'sanitary authority' in this section includes as regards the Metropolis, except the City of London, any vestry or district board elected under 'The Metropolis Management Act, 1855,' also any Local Board of Health, not being an urban sanitary authority within the meaning of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' and as regards the City of London shall mean the Commissioners of Sewers of the said city.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 (Actions in case of contributory nuisance).

MR. TENNANT

moved, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 36, after "nuisance" to add— This clause shall not apply to any defendant who can produce a certificate from the chief inspector that in the works of such defendant the requirements of this Act have been complied with.

MR. DODSON

said, he would consent to accept the Amendment, on condition that the words "and were complied with when the nuisance arose" were added.

Amendment to the said proposed Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. DILLWYN

considered the whole clause was of an objectionable character.

DR. COMMINS

said, the clause, as amended, was objectionable, inasmuch as it created a joint liability. In St. Helen's, for instance, there were a great many manufacturers, and it was utterly impossible to determine to what extent any one of them contributed to a nuisance. It might happen that the small and struggling manufacturer allowed the most noxious vapours, and the larger and richer manufacturer be called upon to stand the consequences. As a rule, when a joint liability was established, it happened that it was not the persons who created the nuisance who suffered, but the person who was best able to pay, or the person who was most likely to submit. They ought to leave the persons who were injured to find out the offenders.

MR. DODSON

said, the Amendment they had just accepted had struck the ground away from the feet of the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins). By the Amendment they had now agreed to, a manufacturer who complied with the requirements of the Act would be in a position to come into Court with a certificate of character and clear himself.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 (Interpretation of terms).

On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Amendment made in page 12, line 42, by inserting— Noxious or offensive gas does not include sulphurous acid arising from the combustion of coal.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 (Repeal of Alkali Acts).

MAJOR NOLAN

moved, as an Amendment, to add at end of Clause— In Ireland the penalties in this Act shall only apply in the County or City of Dublin and in towns of over 50,000 inhabitants.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

thought it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would now consent to report Progress; and he would accordingly make that Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

MR. DODSON

said, the proposition was to go through the whole of the Bill except the Schedule. That would leave them still in Committee, and when Committee was again taken the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) could move his Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MAJOR NOLAN

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

EARL PERCY

said, there were many objections to the Amendment just proposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 28 (Saving as to general law) agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Clause brought up, and read a first and second time:—

(Prevention from nuisance of alkali waste already deposited.)

"Where alkali waste has been deposited to land, either before or after the commencement of this Act, and complaint is made to the chief inspector, that a nuisance is occasioned thereby, the chief inspector, if satisfied of the existence of the nuisance, and that it is within the power of the owner or occupier of the land to abate it, shall serve a notice on such owner or occupier requiring him to abate the nuisance; and if such owner or occupier shall fail to use the best practicable and reasonably available means for the abatement thereof, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds; and if he does not proceed to use such means within such time as shall be limited by the Court inflicting such fine, then he shall be liable to a further penalty of five pounds per day from the expiry of the time so limited."

On Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

MR. SLAGG

would be glad if, in the 1st line, the right hon. Gentleman would consent to insert, after the word "land," "or discharged in a water course."

MR. DODSON

said, he had no objection to leave out the words "on land," and insert "or discharged."

Amendment to proposed new Clause agreed to.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. SLAGG,

in moving, after Clause 11, to insert the following Clause:— In case it shall appear to the inspector that there is an objection on public grounds to the situation of the works proposed to be registered, he shall, before giving his certificate, communicate with the local authority of the place where such works are situate, and such works shall not be registered until two calendar months after such communication shall have been made to the local authority. The local authority to whom such communication is made may, at any time within two calendar months from receiving such communication, lay before the Local Government Board its objections to the registration of such works, and the Local Government Board, after considering such objections and the statement made by the owners of such works, may make an order directing that such works shall not be registered, and the decision of the Local Government Board in such case shall be final, said, his object was to make it possible for town councils and other public bodies to provide means for protecting public parks from the injuries occasioned by noxious gases. If his clause was ac- cepted, public bodies would be able to prevent the erection of works in the vicinity of parks.

MR. DODSON

said, the proposed clause went beyond the hon. Member's explanation. The clause read thus—"In case it shall appear to the inspector that there is an objection on public grounds to the situation of the works proposed to be registered, he shall, before giving his certificate, communicate with the local authority of the place where such works are situate, and within two months of such communication the works shall not be registered, and within the same time the Local Government Board may order that such works shall not be registered." But by Section 10, existing works had a right to claim to be registered, upon complying with certain conditions. The new clause, therefore, would give the Local Government Board the authority to abolish existing works.

MR. SLAGG

explained there was a misprint in the clause. It should read—"Works proposed to be erected."

MR. DODSON

suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw the clause now, and, if he wished to do so, bring it up again in an amended form, which, as the Chairman would shortly report Progress, he would have the opportunity of doing in Committee.

EARL PERCY

asked, whether the objection could not be obviated by inserting, instead of the words "situation of the works," "erection of the works."

MR. SLAGG

said, that was his meaning; but he would accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SLAGG,

in moving the following new Clause:— In case any urban or rural authority, or any ten householders, shall make complaint to the Local Government Board of any noxious or offensive discharge into the atmosphere, from works of any kind situate in the district of such authority, or in the township where such house-hollers reside, the Board shall examine such complaint, and, if the same shall appear well founded, may make an order placing any such works under inspection, either for a limited period or permanently; and Part II. of this Act shall apply to such works, as well as to the works specified therein, said, it was an elastic clause, embracing other works than those comprehended in the Bill. In "another place" a Schedule was proposed by Lord Brodrick, including a number of works he wished to have included; but he (Mr. Slagg) thought it desirable to add an elastic clause such as this, in order that obnoxious trades might be comprehended, which would, if the Bill were left in its present state, be left to do their evil work. Lord Brodrick's Schedule was rejected, on the ground that compliance with it must necessitate an enormous increase in the staff of the Local Government Board. To avoid this objection, and at the same time provide the means of redress, this elastic clause was now proposed.

Clause brought up, and read a first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

MR. WIGGIN

hoped the clause would not be accepted. Every works in the country might be stopped by the hostility of a few persons setting to work together.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he had an objection to all such elastic clauses.

EARL PERCY

said, there was no question of putting a stop to works. The only proposal was to bring certain works within the 2nd part of the Bill, if it should seem right to do so, by the local authority, and not at the will of some half-a-dozen householders. They would be only brought within that part of the Bill which would prevent the works being a nuisance to the neighbourhood in which they were situated. It was a reasonable clause, and it carried out, to a certain extent, a principle to which the Noxious Vapours Committee attached much importance.

MR. STEVENSON

said, to some extent the clause did, as the noble Earl (Earl Percy) said; but it went far beyond the recommendation of the Committee, which was that certain works, not every conceivable kind of works not specified, should be brought under inspection but not at the request of the local authority. The Royal Commission proposed that only a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament should have this effect. Parliament would be parting with its powers to agree to this.

MR. DODSON

said, this was a clause he could not agree to. In the interests of the manufacturer or of the Local Government Board he should not be prepared to assume such power as would be given by the clause to the Board, of placing any class of works under Part II. of the Bill. Moreover, he would point out that notice of this had not been given to the manufacturing interests, and they had not been led to expect any such control. Under the circumstances, he could not agree to the clause.

Question put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dodson.)

MR. DILLWYN

asked, would the Bill be reprinted? It was important that it should be, in the interests of large trades which it seriously affected.

MR. DODSON

said, the Bill could not be ordered to be reprinted until it had gone through Committee. The Committee would resume on Monday week, and the Bill would be reprinted before the consideration of Report.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday 13th June.