HC Deb 22 July 1897 vol 51 cc802-5

The local authority may make bye-laws regulating the construction of pigstyes, the places in which they may be erected, and the mode of cleansing them at proper intervals so as to prevent them from becoming a nuisance or dangerous to public health.

SIR L. LYELL

moved to leave out the Clause. He said this clause was not in the Bill when it first appeared, and he was quite at a loss to understand what motive the Lord Advocate had in inserting it. To his mind it was not a Clause dealing with the public health of human beings. It was a Clause that regulated the public health of pigs. If they were a nuisance they could be summarily dealt with by Clause 16 of the Bill. The best thing that could happen if this Clause were retained, would be that local authorities should disregard it and pass no bye-laws. He thought the Clause entirely unnecessary in the interests of public health.

*THE LORD ADVOCATE

said this Clause was put in on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, and he should leave him to defend his own pigs. He, of course, stuck to the decision of the Committee.

MR. BRYCE

said he moved this Clause because he was instructed, by those who had a greater knowledge of sanitary affairs than he could pretend to, and in point of fact pig-styes were a very great nuisance, because they were badly constructed. If they were better constructed it would be possible to prevent them becoming a. nuisance. The Clause was accepted unanimously by the Committee.

DR. CLARK

said it was absolutely necessary, under certain conditions, to give local authorities power to prevent pigs becoming a nuisance.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 36,—

DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO COMPLAIN TO SHERIFF, ETC., OF NUISANCE ARISING FROM OFFENSIVE TRADE.

  1. (1.) Where it appears to the local authority upon a certificate by their medical officer m sanitary inspector, or from a representation by a parish council, or on a requisition in writing under the hands of any ten ratepayers within the district that any trade, business, process, or manufacture carried on in any manufactory, building, or premises, and causing effluvia is a nuisance or injurious or dangerous to the health of any of the inhabitants of the district, 804 such authority may, if they think proper, and, if required by the Board shall, apply to the sheriff by summary petition, and if it appears to such sheriff that any trade, business, process, or manufacture carried on in such manufactory, building, or premises is causing a nuisance, or any effluvia which is a nuisance or injurious or dangerous to the health of any of the inhabitants within the district, then, unless it is shown that the best practicable means have been used for removing the nuisance, or preventing or counteracting the effluvia, the author of the nuisance, and failing him the occupier and failing him the owner of the premises, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds.
  2. (2.) Provided that the court may suspend its final determination on condition that the person so offending undertakes to adopt, within a reasonable time, such means as the court may deem practicable, and may order to be carried into effect, for removing the nuisance, or mitigating or preventing the injurious or dangerous effects of the effluvia.
  3. (3.) The local authority may, if they think fit, on such certificate as is in this section mentioned, cause to be taken any proceedings in the Court of Session against any person in respect of the matters alleged in such certificate.
  4. (4.) The local authority may take proceedings under this section in respect of a manufactory, building, or premises situate without their district, so, however, that the summary proceedings shall be had before a sheriff having jurisdiction in the district where the manufactory, building, or premises are situate.

MR. CALDWELL

moved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out "upon a certificate," and to insert "or it is certified to them in writing." The whole scope of the Bill was that the local authority was to have fall responsibility to institute proceedings, and if it did not institute proceedings it would be called to account by the Local Government Board. This Amendment was simply carrying out what they had done throughout the Bill, which was to place the responsibility of taking proceedings upon the local authority, which could fortify itself either by a certificate of the medical officer or by a representation of the Parish Council, or a requisition by other people.

MR. RENSHAW

supported the Amendment. It seemed to him a matter of very great importance that the local authority should have full power to act in respect of these matters, and should have the power of taking the initiative in a case of this kind. He considered this matter of the greatest importance to the local authorities.

*THE LORD ADVOCATE

, while obliged to his hon. Friend, felt compelled to oppose the Amendment.

SIR C. CAMERON

hoped his hon. Friend would stand by his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39,—