COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 09 July 1890 vol 346 cc1233-42

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

*(4.15.) CAPTAIN VERNEY

In principle, I think the Amendment I propose has the approval of the promoters of the Bill. I believe the promoters would be glad to sec the whole of the Bill extended to the whole country, but that is not proposed, and, probably, would not be found practicable. Then the question arises, how much of the general provisions should be applied when Sanitary Authorities desire there should be the application. As the Bill stands, it is proposed that part I shall be extended to England and Wales in any case, whereas the provisions in parts 2, 3, 4, and 5 only extend to those districts in which they are adopted. The object of my Amendment is to make the two clauses relating to public meetings of universal application throughout the country. I think the Committee will agree with mc that it is very desirable that when a public meeting is called within the area of an urban or Rural Sanitary Authority, the Sanitary Authority should take steps for the protection of the public. I think every hon. Member will have had within his experience public meetings held under circumstances in which life has been in the greatest danger. I know it has happened to me on several occasions. I have attended meetings in a room at the top of a building, gaslights glaring, and crowded with people, sometimes all of one way of thinking, sometimes of opposing opinions, and access to the place of meeting being up a small, spiral staircase, and the lives of all these have been in considerable danger. Now, Clauses 37 and 38 deal only with this subject, and I think they ought not to be contentious, and that every Member will agree they ought to have universal application. Clause 37, which deals with the means of ingress and egress, should be of application everywhere. Clause 38 refers to the safety of platforms erected, or used on public occasions. I think we must admit that the platforms, on which we are asked to take our stand, are not always very safe, and I think there is every reason why, by a few words in an Act, we should obtain security in this respect.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 2, page 1, line 15, after the word "London" to insert the words "Sections thirty-seven and thirty-eight, Part three, shall also extend to England and Wales."—(Captain Verney.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

*(4.19.) MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

The plan of the Bill is a simple one. It is necessary to make this part of the Bill imperative to give effect to the Bill, but the whole of the rest is permissive, and I feel sure that the best way to insure the whole being carried into operation, in fact and not in form only, is to leave option to the authorities.

(4.20.) MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press this. I do not know if he is aware of the circumstances under which this Bill comes before us. At the commencement of the Session two Bills were introduced, one by myself at the request of certain Municipal Authorities, and one by my hon. Friend, who has had constant experience on the "Police and Sanitary Committee" of the complaints of Local Authorities of the expense of coming to Parliament to get certain powers not conferred upon them by the general law. I sat on that Committee some years ago, and we recommended the desirability of passing a general Act dealing with all these matters. Although I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that it would be a good thing if we could find time to provide for general legislation in this direction, in legislation, as in other matters, we have often to stop short of perfection and be content with second best. The two Bills were referred to a strong Select Committee, presided over by the Secretary of the Local Government Board, and the Committee came to the unanimous conclusion that it is desirable to leave the Bill permissive, leaving to the Local Authorities to say if they will or will not adopt its provisions. I have little doubt that we shall in time find it in universal application. I may, without assuming knowledge I do not possess, premise that this is probably the last Wednesday we shall have at our disposal for other than Government business, and I would urge that our only chance of carrying through a piece of useful legislation is to adhere to the permissive character of the Bill. I think we may have sufficient confidence in County Councils and Town Councils to leave them to say "aye" or "no" to the adoption of the Act.

*(4.24.) MR. RITCHIE

I hope that the Committee will accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fowler.) The object of the Bill is to enable Local Authorities to take advantage of existing legislation for the benefit of those they represent, and I confidently believe it will be taken advantage of throughout the country just as if its operation were made imperative. Such has been our experience of the Notification of Diseases Act. There is the advantage that we enlist the local sympathy and co-operation of Local Authorities, when by more drastic regulation we might excite opposition.

(4.25.) MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

Last year I held an opinion strongly in favour of the proposal in my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, but I have been converted by what I have heard from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) and greatly encouraged by the reception his last great measure has received throughout the country. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Fowler) said a few months ago that he, at the beginning of the Session, represented the views of a number of Municipal Corporations. Now Municipal Corporations are always enabled to make their wishes felt in the House, but it is somewhat different in regard to Rural Sanitary Authorities, and on their behalf I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ritchie). They do not always receive at the hands of his Department so much consideration as I think they are entitled to, the reason being, I suppose, that the officials being but human yield to the strongest. Now, the principles of public health are exactly the same in rural districts as in towns, and the causes of consumption are alike in each. I have in mind an instance in regard to a district in Cheshire where the Rural Sanitary Authorities were not able to obtain urban powers, with the result that consumption has prevailed to a terrible degree. If we could obtain general assent I could strongly wish that the whole of the Public Health Act should apply to rural districts as in towns. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will, when he receives application from Rural Authorities for urban powers, give such applications his most favourable consideration.

*(4.28.) MR. RITCHIE

I am not sure that these observations come within the scope of the Amendment, but the hon. Gentleman has made a charge against the Department over which I have the honour to preside, that we do not give sufficient attention to the representations of Rural Authorities. In that I can assure him he is entirely mistaken. On the contrary, the authorities we find most difficult to persuade to take action in these matters are in the rural districts. I can assure the hon. Member that in reference to sanitary matters it often requires our most strenuous endeavours to put sanitary precautions into force. The real truth is, the Sanitary Authorities are not always constituted in the manner we would desire.

(4.29.) MR. BRUNNER

I may explain that the difficulty I spoke of arose before the right hon. Gentleman occupied office.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16.

*MR. KELLY

It is difficult to understand how it is that this clause appears in the Bill. No doubt the measure is a very useful one, but I doubt if this clause is workable. It provides that if any person turns into any drain pipe leading to any sewer water of a higher temperature than 110 deg. Fah., so as to be likely to cause a nuisance, or to be injurious to health, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £10. Now, I do not think there is any Member of this House who would not every day come under that clause, when he is in the lavatory, for if the water in the basin is too hot he naturally turns it out. I do not know how one is to send hot water into a drain without causing a nuisance. What I would suggest is, that the clause should stipulate that the nuisance should be injurious to health. How can anyone send hot water into a drain without causing a nuisance? All I ask for is that it shall be provided that the nuisance shall be injurious to health. In the neighbourhood in which I reside there are some soap works, and frequently we have to shut our windows on account of the nuisance, which is not, however, injurious to health. We do not claim any right to interfere with the soap-boiler. If we choose to buy him up that is our own matter, but we cannot interfere with his business so long as it is not injurious to health. I will give another case in which this clause would work most inconveniently. A manufacturer has to have his boilers scaled every three months, and unless he is to throw his employ^°s out of work for a day or two, he has to turn the hot water direct into the drains. I contend that the alteration I suggest, which would provide that the nuisance must be injurious to health, would cover all these difficulties. There have been three Bills passed which practically cover this point. There is the Stockton Act, the Scarborough Act, and the Dublin Act. I want to know why the people of London should not be treated in the same way as the people of Dublin in this matter, and only be made liable for nuisances injurious to health. It must be remembered that the general public are not in a position to know when these special provisions are inserted in Local Bills. The question is, is anyone to come under this penal clause simply because he causes a nuisance, although it may not be injurious to health? Of course, if the House does not choose to interfere, it is not for me to continue the discussion; but I do think this is a matter deserving attention, and I, therefore, beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, "To leave out Clause 16."—(Mr. Kelly.)

Question proposed, "That Clause 16 stand part of the Bill."

*(4.37.) MR. F. S. POWELL

The hon. Member is entirely inaccurate in his reading of the Bill. The words of the Dublin Bill appear in this Bill, and are found in the Public Health Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 26.

*(4.38.) MR. KELLY

In connection with this clause I wish to draw attention to a point arising under the Scarborough Act. It may surprise hon. Members to hear that Scarborough is filled with courts which are not swept or kept clean. This clause provides that in such cases the Urban Authority shall cause the courts to be swept and kept clean, and shall apportion the expense between the occupiers of the buildings situated in the courts or at the back of which the passage leads in such share as may be determined by the Surveyor of the Urban Authority, or in case of dispute by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and such appointment may be recovered summarily from the occupier. But is this the sort of clause which Local Bodies should be asked to adopt? Surely it is hard on the unhappy occupier, who has no control over the court or passage, to render him liable to be dragged before a Magistrate for his portion of his trifling expense—amounting, in all probability, to a few pence—of sweeping out a court in which he may be living only quite temporarily. I beg to move the omission of the clause.

Amendment proposed, "To leave out Clause 26."—(Mr. Kelly.)

Question proposed, "That Clause 26 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 42.

*MR. KELLY

Under the Public Health Act of 1875 it is not in the power of any Local Authority to take over any private road until it has been channelled, sewered, paved, flagged, lighted, &c. It is incumbent on the Local Authorities to see that every one of these things is done before the road is declared to be repairable by the inhabitants at large. Now, the late Master of the Rolls, Sir George Jessel, said, in a case which came before him, that it was important to bear in mind that the expense of future repairs to a road would be much greater if it were not properly made in the first place, and that the interest of the public ought not to be sacrificed to those of the speculative builder or owner of land. With that I think we shall all agree. But, unfortunately, there are cases in which Local Bodies are swayed by questionable motives in taking over roads, and surely there should be some power to say that the works required to be carried out under Section 152 of the Public Health Act of 1875, should be properly done before the liability is thrown on the ratepayers of repairing these roads. I think the House should be careful not to make any alteration in the law which is calculated to throw further burdens on the ratepayers. I beg to move the omission of this clause.

Amendment proposed, "To leave out Clause 42."—(Mr. Kelly.)

Question proposed, "That Clause 42 stand part of the Bill."

*MR. F. S. POWELL

I think it would be extremely unjust to the whole community if this clause were omitted, as great inconvenience arises from want of the power which it would confer.

*(4.49.) MR. M'LAREN

It seems to me that instead of omitting the entire clause we ought to omit the words on page 17, line 40, "or any of them." That would then make it incumbent upon an owner to do all these works, and it would enable the Local Authority to take over a road in a complete state. It is not, I venture to think, the cost of repairing roads which has to be considered. It is the cost of making them. When a builder has laid out a piece of land for building purposes he is bound, under the existing law, to make a complete road. It is desirable in the interests of the ratepayers that this should be done; but if the clause is passed in its present form a Local Authority will be able to take over a new street or road, which is not lighted, or channelled, or paved. They will be able to take it over if only one of these things is done. It seems to me that we should lay down the principle that when an owner of land makes a new road he should properly complete it before the Local Authority can take it over. The remainder of the clause is right enough. I beg to move the omission of the words in page 17, line 40, "or any of them."

(4.51.) THE CHAIRMAN

Order, Order! The Question has already been put, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill." It is not competent, therefore, for the hon. Member to move this Amendment.

*(4.52.) MR. RITCHIE

No doubt there ought to be severe obligations entailed in the taking over of private roads. But this clause practically leaves the matter in the hands of Local Authorities, and if they think the cases are such as to require that the whole of these things shall be done they can insist on it, or they may limit themselves to certain of them. It is a matter which rests entirely with them whether or not they will take over the road. In a Bill which has already passed, the House has practically assented to these very words.

Question put, and agreed to.

(4.55.) CAPTAIN VERNEY

I beg to move the insertion in this Bill of the provision that Sections 171 and 172 of the Public Health Act shall be hereby reenacted. The object of putting that in will be to give additional powers to the Rural Sanitary Authorities. These clauses give power to regulate the charges for the hiring of carriages and boats. Of course, Urban Authorities already possess the powers to make bye- laws, but Rural Sanitary Authorities have them not. I have a particular ease in my mind, which illustrates the necessity for this clause. Thousands of visitors every summer pour into the Menai Bridge Station. If they turn to the right they enter the precincts of the city of Bangor, and should they hire a carriage or a boat there is a defined tariff, so that the carriages or the boat may not be overloaded. But if they turn to the left they are outside the limits of the city, and they may be swindled right and left to any extent by the driver. The boatman may be a person incapable of managing a boat. The carriages may be overloaded, and the people may be charged more than a reasonable price. Well, if the words I suggest are inserted powers will be given to Rural, as well as to Urban Sanitary Authorities, to make these bye laws. I hope the House will admit that this is a reasonable proposition, I can see no reason why this power should not be given to Rural Sanitary Authorities, and, therefore, I move that these words be re-enacted in this Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 17, after Clause 42, to insert the following clause:— Clauses one hundred and seventy-one and one hundred and seventy-two of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' are hereby re-enacted."—(Captain Verney.)

Question proposed, "That this clause be read a second time."

(4.58.) MR. RITCHIE

I think the Amendment is altogether unnecessary, because any Rural Authority may get permission, on application, to exercise these powers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*(4.59.) MR. RITCHIE

I wish to express my obligations to, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and to the hon. Member for Wigan for the assistance they have given in the passing of this most valuable measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and the Member for Wigan had Bills on the subject, and they most readily accepted the suggestion that all three Bills should be referred to a Select Committee. The result has been in every way satisfactory, and very important improvements have been made in the law in regard to these matters.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.