§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road a second time."
§ *MR, CLAUDE HAY moved the rejection of the Bill, because it was a tinkering measure It repealed a portion of the Act of 1889, whereas he thought more of that Act ought to be repealed. From the view of public health, this was a measure of primary importance, but they had received no explanation of it from the hon. Member in charge of the Bill. He thought Clauses 4 and 5 were drawn on wrong lines, and that the local authorities should be granted power to prevent the carrying of offensive matter during daylight. His contention was that if the Bill passed in its present shape, the residents in the suburbs would not only be exposed to great inconvenience, but there would be considerable danger to public health. It was a meddling Bill, and would cause overlapping between local authorities. The management of the Metropolitan area was no light affair, and they ought to prevent any possible confusion in administrative matters affecting public health. For these reasons he moved the rejections of this Bill, and because he believed that no useful legislation could be passed when pettifogging measures of this nature wore presented at that hour in the morning.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea)appealed to the House to give him the Second Reading of this little Bill, but perhaps it was necessary that he should explain its simple proposals. We had in London, as everybody 1467 knew, and as must be the case in every large city, a certain amount of offensive matter which had to be moved from place to place. This particular occupation was not a very profitable or pleasant one, and it was sometimes a very dangerous one for those engaged in it. Everybody would agree that those operations ought to be carried out under conditions which would render no man liable to be be harassed, endangered, or imprisoned, and the object of the Bill was to unify the sanitary areas over which these operations wore carried on. In consequence of the sanitary area not being unified great inconvenience resulted. Supposing there was a load of insanitary matter put into a barge at Teddington Lock and its destination was Tilbury, under the law as it now stood the barge man took his barge load and reached Barking, and if the hours expired during which he might remove this offensive matter he had, before he could move again under the regulations of the County Council, to remain there twenty-four hours or risk fine or imprisonment. He thought that men who performed this useful and evil-smelling work ought to be protected, and the time had arrived when all the authorities had agreed that the regulations of the County Council and of the police should be unified and that these men should be enabled to carry out their work in a proper way. The hon. Member was mistaken about the alteration of the hours. The rule now was that offensive matter could only be moved between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. and the proposal of this Bill was that the hours should be from 6 a.m. to 12 noon. The reason for the change was that if offensive matter were removed between 8 o'clock at night and 6 o'clock in the morning that was the period of darkness, and for a sanitary operation of this nature daylight was, in the opinion of the police, indispensable. The hon. Member talked about people in the suburbs being inconvenienced, but what now happened was that under the cover of fog or darkness this offensive matter was deposited sometimes on the forecourt or gardens of suburban residences, which could not be done if the police were able to keep their eye upon the men who did it, as they would have an opportunity of doing in daylight. This Bill would give equal rights to everybody engaged in the removal of offensive matter, and they had a right to see that these men 1468 got just and proper treatment in carrying out this offensive work. He had expected the hon. Member to quote the poet Coleridge in regard to Cologne, in which place he said he counted seven and twenty different smells, which were all well-defined and separate stinks. In London we had not seven and twenty smells, but we had several well-defined and separate stinks, and in order to get rid of them he hoped the House would give the Government the Second Reading of this Bill.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.