HC Deb 02 July 1934 vol 291 cc1707-8

11.17 p.m.

Mr. SPENS

I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, at the end, to add the words: (4) Nothing in this Act nor any licence granted by the Board of Trade hereunder shall be construed or operate to exonerate any person holding any such licence from any indictment, action, or other proceedings for nuisance in the event of any nuisance being caused or permitted by such person. In as much as we are giving power to licensees to acquire the right to set up refineries, and a refinery is capable of being a public nuisance, there is a danger that possibly these licensees may put forward the defence that they are acting under powers conferred upon them by this Act and, if they prove that they are doing nothing unreasonable in the circumstances, they may have a good defence to an action for nuisance. Such a position would be intolerable. If they are going to get these very valuable rights, they should be liable to ordinary actions for nuisance if they make the surrounding country and villages and towns seriously suffer. We ought to insert a proviso that they have no such statutory defence.

11.19 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

We are satisfied that nothing in the Bill or in any licence granted by the Board of Trade would exonerate a person holding a licence from the actions set out in the Amendment, and for that reason we think it would be a mistake, and would be indeed objectionable on the general principles, to insert words which might suggest any doubt about the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.20 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT

I should like a little explanation on Sub-section (3). I know that it was inserted in another place after considerable negotiation, and that great value was attached to it by the land-owning interests, but the wording fails to reveal what it means.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

This Sub-section was inserted to make it impossible for an argument to be raised with regard to the very weighty words in Clause 1 (1): The property in petroleum … vested in His Majesty. Those words were inserted to make it clear that petroleum should not be searched for and taken under those general words without the machinery of the Bill being gone through. That is the object, and I think it probably explains the reason for the words taking such a form here.